ORDER

M.S. LATIF, MEMBER[JUDL.]

1. Through the medium of the instant OA, the applicants seeks direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High of J&K in the case titled as State of J&K & Ors. versus Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. as also law laid down in the case of Ms. Darakshan Anjum versus State of J&K and Ors. and the same upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the direction upon the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants including wages for the intervening period as the same shall be in the interest of justice. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicants have also prayed for grant of interim relief seeking direction upon the respondents to decide the representations of the applicants in the light of the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in the case titled as State of J&K & Ors. versus Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. The case of the applicants as prayed for in the OA is that the applicant No.1 was initially engaged as a daily wager in the respondents’ department for a period of 89 days on 29.04.1994 and the applicant No.2 was engaged as daily wager in the same department on 21.07.1995. The engagement orders have been annexed with the OA as Annexure 1. It is further averred in the OA that the applicants worked as daily wagers in the respondent’s department without any break diligently and zealously in their respective capacity until 2001. However, thereafter the officers/respondents stopped to prepare muster rolls and attendance sheets of the applicants on the plea that the applicants had been engaged after the ban was imposed to which the reference was made to the Cabinet Order No. 157 dated 31.01.2001.

2. It is also averred that the applicants irrespective of having worked with dedication were unjustly harassed and their wages were also not released in their favour. However, it has been averred that the applicants were made to attend duties for years together. But neither their wages were paid nor their services were regularized which according to the applicants is arbitrary and violative of their rights.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that despite the applicants having completed seven years of dedicated service with the respondents and despite multiple representations filed by the applicants no substantive response or action was taken by the respondents. It is also averred that the applicants have exhausted all available avenues for resolution of their grievances through appropriate channels and yet their grievance has remained unaddressed. He further submits that the case of the applicants is similarly situated as that of those in the case of State of J&K & Ors. versus Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. as well as those in the case of Ms. Darakshan Anjum versus State of J&K and Ors. As such, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case of the applicants also deserves to be considered on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in the above referred Judgements.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he would be satisfied if the petition is taken up for its final disposal at this stage. The prayer of the applicant is allowed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the Judgements as are appended with the OA titled as State of J&K & Ors. versus Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. as well as Ms. Darakshan Anjum versus State of J&K and Ors.

6. The OA is accordingly disposed by providing as under: “The respondents are directed to decide the representations of the applicants reportedly filed by them having regard to the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in the case titled as State of J&K & Ors. versus Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors. as well as Ms. Darakshan Anjum versus S