1. The petitioners claim that they were engaged as daily wagers in the department of Social Forestry in February, 1990 and March, 1991. While they were performing their duties continuously without any interruption since the date of their initial engagement, the respondent No.1 issued the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated/Work Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 (for brevity, the rules of 1994), whereby a provision was made for regularization of daily rated workers/work charged employees who had rendered seven years continues service and would fulfill the eligibility requirement as laid in rule 4. The petitioners claim that they completed seven years continuous service as daily rated workers in February, 1997 and March, 1998 and therefore became entitled to be regularized as Class-IV employees w.e.f 01.04.1997 and 01.04.1998 respectively by operation of rule 8 of the rules of 1994 but the respondents while according them the benefit of regularization in terms of aforesaid rules appointed the petitioners as Helpers w.e.f 01.04.2001. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, represented to the respondents and sought their regularization/appointment as Helper retrospectively from the date they had completed the requisite service of seven years as envisaged under the rules of 1994. The representation was made by the petitioners on 29.01.2008 to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Project Director Social Forestry, J&K Government, Jammu which was followed by another representation made on 29.01.2008. It is stated by the petitioners that the representation made on 27.01.2008 was taken cognizance by the Regional Director Social Forestry but no decision was taken. The petitioners claim that with a view to know the result of consideration of their representation, they made several rounds to the office of the respondents but with no avail. Having found no response from the respondents for all these years, the petitioners decided to approach this Court and hence this petition was filed in the year 2016.

2. Respondents have filed their objections and the principal objection taken to the maintainability of the petition is that the order of regularization of the petitioners was passed way back in the year 2001, whereas the petitioners came to this Court in the year 2016, i.e., nearly after a decade of the accrual of the cause of action. It is also stated that the delay and laches, if ignored, would create an administrative chaos in as much as many similarly situated daily rated workers who have been regularized from 01.04.2001 or before would en-block rank juniors to the petitioners.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It would be necessary to set out some of the relevant provisions of rules of 1994 for better appreciation of the controversy raised. The rules 3, 4, 5 and 8 are reproduced hereunder:—

“3. Creaton of posts:—(1) The Committee may from time to time on receipt of proposal from any Administrative Department approve the creation of posts for the purpose of regularization of Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employees.

(2) After the approval under sub-rule (1) above is conveyed to the Administrative Department, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue the orders of creation of posts. The posts so created shall be—

(a) borne on the Plan or Non-Plan establishment as the classification of the scheme or work may be on which such eligible persons are deployed, and

(b) in conformity with the existing sanctioned designation in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940.

4. Eligibility for regularization:—A Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employee shall be eligible for regularization on fulfillment of the following conditions; namely:—

(a) that he is permanent resident of the State;

(b) that on the date of his initial appointment his age was within the minimum and maximum age limit as prescribed for appointment in Government Service.

(c) that he possesses the prescribed