The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 for Daily Wagers, based on the conditions laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (WCE) Regularization Rules 1994.

1. The respondent - Ms. Anuradha D/o Sh. Charan Dass R/o Landar, Block Panchari, Udhampur, claiming to have been appointed as daily rated worker on 25th January, 1994 filed a writ petition registered in SWP No. 697/2001 praying for a direction to the respondent-appellants herein, to regularize her service. The writ petition was disposed of vide Order dated 12-10-2001 with the direction to the respondent to accord consideration to regularization of service of the petitioner. The appellants vide Order dated 23-04-2005, on according consideration to the respondent's regularization, rejected her claim. The reasons given in the aforesaid order, for rejecting the claim were that the respondent was engaged as casual labour and not a daily wager and that the respondent could not claim benefit under SRO 64 of 1994. The respondent is said to have not completed seven years of service as a Daily Wager, so as to enable her to claim regularization under the aforementioned SRO.

2. The respondent assailed the Order dated 23-04-2005 in writ petition regis­tered as SWP No.605/2005. The stand taken in earlier writ petition i.e. SWP No.697/2001 was reiterated in the fresh petition. It was insisted that the respondent having been appointed as a Daily Wager and allowed to continue as a Daily Wager for more than seven years, was entitled to regularization of service in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and that the order declining her benefit of regularization was unsustain­able inasmuch as it did not take notice of the facts discernible from the respondent's service record and the rules as applicable to the facts of the case.

3. The stand taken by the appellants was that the respondent was engaged as "casual labour" and not a daily wager and her engagement was not uninterrupted. It was pleaded that the respondent after her engagement as a casual labour, was not paid wages for a particular period and thus, the respondent did not have uninterrupted service of seven years to her credit.

4. The writ Court has held the respondent to have been engaged as a Daily Wager on 25th January, 1994 i.e. before the cut off date of 31st January, 1994 after which engagement on Daily Wager basis was prohibited and thus, entitled to the benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. The writ Court having regard to the service profile of the respondent, found no merit in the case set up by the appellants that the respondent was only a casual labour. The writ Court was of the opinion that continued and uninterrupted service for a long period and not the nomencla­ture, was crucial in deciding, whether the respondent was a casual worker or a daily wager. The contention that the respondent was not paid for a particular period after her initial engagement, did not weigh with the Writ Court and was not found sufficient to take away with the right of respondent, to get her service regularized. The writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to regularize the service of the respondent in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, from the date the petitioner completed seven years of service. The respondent was also held entitled to back wages from the date of her regularization.

5. The writ Court judgment is questioned in this Letters Patent Appeal, on the grounds that the judgment is contrary to the facts and law. It is pleaded that a person engaged on casual/daily wages basis has no right to permanent appointment in Government Service to the exclusion of other eligible candidates without throwing open the posts to all eligible candidates. The respondent, it is insisted, has not worked and thus not paid for specific periods detailed in the order impugned in the writ petition and to have worked as substitute in leave arrangement during April and May, 1994. It is further pleaded that the respondent did not have uninterrupted service of seven years to her credit, so as to enable her to claim benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. The writ Court is said to have no