These petitions involve common question of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in all these petitions have been engaged as Daily Rated Workers/Seasonal Workers or Causal Labourers by the Respondents, including Field/Subordinate Officers. In these petitions, they seek direction to the respondents to regularise their services under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 on the ground that they have completed seven years as Daily Rated Workers/Casual Workers and seasonal Labourers and also on the ground that some of the petitioners, who have not completed seven years service but have performed election duty in the Valley are entitled to seek regularisation of their services in terms of Government order No. 355-GAD of 1996 dated 30th April, 1996. In some of the petitions, the petitioners plead, that while working as Daily Rated workers/ Casual Workers/Seasonal Workers they were taken into preventive detention and, after their release from such detention, have been re-engaged and, therefore, the period for which they were kept in preventive detention should be taken into consideration as having actively worked in their respective engagements and by giving the benefit of the period of detention, their services should be regularised. Some of the petitioners have been engaged prior to January, 1994, i.e., before the issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994, some after the issuance of the said Government order and even after the issuance of SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24th March, 1994. The petitioners also seek wages for the periods they have worked where ever they have not been paid by the respondents. Some petitioners seek regularization on higher posts instead of class IV post. 3. In one of the petitions, SWP No. 871/2000, it is contended that the petitioner was engaged prior to 31st January, 1994 and, on account of militancy, had to migrate from the Valley to Jammu. He has been re-engaged and claims regularisation in terms of Government order No. 27-F of 1997 dated 14.1.1997. Since the petitioner in this petition forms a distinct class in itself, the point in issue in this petition will be dealt with separately. 4. The respondents in some of the petitions have filed their objections/reply/Counter-affidavits. 5. He has been re-engaged and claims regularisation in terms of Government order No. 27-F of 1997 dated 14.1.1997. Since the petitioner in this petition forms a distinct class in itself, the point in issue in this petition will be dealt with separately. 4. The respondents in some of the petitions have filed their objections/reply/Counter-affidavits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have not opposed the admission of these petitions, which are, accordingly, admitted, and sought permission of the court to argue the petitions for final disposal which was not opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, legal and factual submission relating to these Petitions were made. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondents that those of the petitioners, who have been engaged as Seasonal Labourers or Casual Labourers, have no right to seek consideration for regularisation of their services as they do not fall within the definition of Daily Rated Workers in terms of Rule 2 (f) of SRO 64 of 1994. Similarly, the Daily Rated Workers, who have been engaged after issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994, in breach of the policy of the Government indicated in Para 1(d) of the said Government order and also those engaged in violation of Rule 7 Of SRO 64 of 1994, are not entitled to seek regularisation. It is also stated by the respondents that in some of the writ petitions the engagements have been managed by the relations of the petitioners working in the departments, such as father or brother, while as, in some cases the engagements are totally fake and that almost all the petitioners are continuing on the strength of interim directions of the court. It is further stated that in some cases there are interim directions from the court for continuation but the appointees have already been disengaged by the respondents before such interim directions were passed and such of the petitioners are also not entitled to seek regularisation. It is also the plea of the respondents that in some of the petitions petitioners are not presently working with the respondents having been ousted in terms of Government order No,144-GAD of 2001 dated 2nd February, 2001. It is also the plea of the respondents that in some of the petitions petitioners are not presently working with the respondents having been ousted in terms of Government order No,144-GAD of 2001 dated 2nd February, 2001. In some of the petitions, respondents in their replies have stated that the petitioners have quoted wrong dates of their engagements and correct dates of engagement have been indicated by the respondents which in turn have been disputed by the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and persued the record. 8. Daily Rated Workers, Casual Workers and Seasonal Labourers were being engaged by the Field Officers and the Officers of the State at random as there were no Rules therefor. For the first time the Rules for regularisation of the services of the Work Charged Employees and such workers came to be framed in terms of Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January 1994, which contained a proviso that the work Charged Employees and Daily Rated Workers, who have completed seven years continuous period of working or may complete it on 31.4.1994, shall be appointed in a regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from Ist April, 1994. In terms of para 1(d) of the said Government order, the practice of engagement of daily wagers/work charged employees in any form has been withdrawn except for Casual Labour/Seasonal Labour for specified development department on muster roll. It was further provided that no engagement/appointment orders shall be issued. The relevant paras 1(c) and 1(d) of the Govt. order are reproduced hereunder: "l (c) The policy of absorption of daily rated workers after completion of seven years of continuous working shall also apply to such of the existing daily rated workers who may not complete seven years on 31st March, 1994, but may do so by the end of the subsequent financial years. The Committee as mentioned in sub-para (b) shall review the cases of -the existing incumbents by the end of each financial year and create appropriate number of posts till the existing incumbents are absorbed into regular pay scales. The Committee as mentioned in sub-para (b) shall review the cases of -the existing incumbents by the end of each financial year and create appropriate number of posts till the existing incumbents are absorbed into regular pay scales. (d) The practice of engagement of daily wager/daily rated worker in the Government in any form is hereby withdrawn retaining only the concept of casual labour/seasonal Labour for specified development department The engagement of such casual/seasonal Labour shall be on the muster roll for payment of wages and no engagement/appointment orders shall be issued..." 9. Thereafter the Government framed rules for regularisation of service of the daily rated workers/work charge employees known as J&K Daily Rated workers/ Work charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994, notified vide notification dated 24th March, 1994, making it effective from Ist April 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `SRO 64 of 1994). Rule 2 of SRO 64 of 1994 deals with definitions and Rules 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 deal with regularisation of Daily Rated Workers, restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work charged Employees, filling up of class IV vacancies by appointing such Daily Rated Workers and saving of such relevant provisions of Government Order No. 26-F of 1994, respectively and are extracted below:--- 2. Definitions: In these rules, unless the subject or context otherwise requires; a ....... b. Casual labour Worker means a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual service to a Department. c ....... d ....... e ....... f. Daily Rated Worker means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the :rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time. g....... h. Seasonal Labour/Worker means a person who is employed in any department for a defined season or period of a year. 4. c ....... d ....... e ....... f. Daily Rated Worker means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the :rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time. g....... h. Seasonal Labour/Worker means a person who is employed in any department for a defined season or period of a year. 4. Eligibility for Regularisation : -- A Daily Rate Worker/Work Charged Employee shall be eligible for regularisation on fulfilment of the following conditions, namely : (a) that he is a 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 academic and/or technical qualification for the post against which he is required to be regularised; Provided that in case of eligible Daily Rated Workers to be regularised against Class IV posts, relaxation of qualification and/or age shall be considered on merits by the Concerned Administrative Department. (d) that he is not a retiree from any state or Central Government Service or any Local Body, public Sector Undertaking or Autonomous Body in or outside the State; (e) that his work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he worked as Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee as no Disciplinary proceedings are pending against him ; and (f) that he has completed seven years continuous period of working as Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee or partly as Daily Rated Worker and party as Work charged Employee. 5. Regularisation of Daily Rated Workers : All the Daily Rated Workers who on 31.3.1994, are eligible under Rule 4 for regularisation shall with effect from 1.4.1994, be appointed on the regular pay scale of Class IV prescribed in the concerned department for the relevant category of posts in the scale of Rs.750-940. 7. 5. Regularisation of Daily Rated Workers : All the Daily Rated Workers who on 31.3.1994, are eligible under Rule 4 for regularisation shall with effect from 1.4.1994, be appointed on the regular pay scale of Class IV prescribed in the concerned department for the relevant category of posts in the scale of Rs.750-940. 7. Restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees.--- (1) With effect from the commencement of these Rules, no Field/subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of a Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employee in the Department and the existing delegation, if any, in this regard is withdrawn; Provided that the Competent Authority may engage casual Labour or Seasonal Labour in any of the Departments to be specified by notification from time to time by the Government and such labour shall be on the Muster Roll for payment of wages and no engagement or appointment order shall be issued. (2) After the commencement of these rules the Work Charged posts shall be created only by the Administrative Department in consultation with the Finance and Planning Department. 9. Miscellaneous. -- (1) No Class IV vacancy occurring in any department where Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employees are adjustable under these rules shall be available for direct recruitment till whole lot of such workers/employees is adjusted; (2) if any retired person has been engaged as Daily Rated worker, his/her service/ engagement as such shall be terminated forthwith; 10. Repeal and savings. -- All the existing rules, regulations and orders excepting Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31-01-1994 relating to the matters covered by these rules are hereby repealed." 10. For regularisation of services of a Daily Rated Worker, it is seen from the afore-extracted provisions, contained in the Rules, that a Daily Rated Worker must be eligible and should have been appointed by a competent authority in terms of the provisions contained in SRO 64 of 1994. In the present cases, some of the petitioners have been engaged by Field officers/Subordinate Officers after issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994 and after the promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24th March, 1994. 11. In the present cases, some of the petitioners have been engaged by Field officers/Subordinate Officers after issuance of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31st January, 1994 and after the promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994 dated 24th March, 1994. 11. In light of the pleadings of the parties, legal and factual submissions made at the bar and the rule position, as quoted above, the following points emerge for determination in these petitions: (1) Whether the Petitioners, who have been engaged after issuance of Government order N0.26-F of 1994 dated 31.1.1994 in violation of para 1 (d) thereof, and dehors Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994, i.e., after Ist April, 1994, are entitled to seek regularisation? (2) Whether the petitioners, who are continuing on the strength of the interim orders of the court have any right to continue and to be regularised? (3) Whether the petitioners who have obtained interim orders from the court but had been ousted prior to such interim orders, and/or the petitioners who were engaged after 31st January, 1994 but have been ousted in terms of Government order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 2nd February, 2001 are entitled to seek reguliarisation after having completed seven years of service ? (4) Whether the petitioners, who had performed election duty and engaged after 31st January, 1994 are entitled to seek regularisation. 5. Whether such of the petitioners, who were taken into preventive detention and after release therefrom have been re-engaged are entitled to be considered for regularization taking into account the said period also to meet the requirement of uninterrupted and continuous service of seven years: 6. Whether the petitioners, whose engagements are fake or managed by relations, or whose date of appointment/engagement is disputed being incorrect can be ordered to be considered for regularisation on the basis of their such claim and dates of engagement relied upon by them? 7. Whether the Daily Rated Workers, whose Service have been regularised against Class IV posts, or those who are seeking their regularisation against posts carrying pay scales higher than Class IV posts, can seek regularisation against the posts carrying higher pay scales? 8. Whether the contingent paid workers and persons working on consolidated wages can seek regularisation of their services, being neither Daily Rated workers nor employed against posts and only being paid out of the local contingent fund or Charged on the work? 12. 8. Whether the contingent paid workers and persons working on consolidated wages can seek regularisation of their services, being neither Daily Rated workers nor employed against posts and only being paid out of the local contingent fund or Charged on the work? 12. The Daily Rated Workers, who have been engaged before 31st January, 1994 and are continuing as such till date without any interruption, are entitled to seek regularisation in terms of the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994. There can be, and is, no dispute about such petitioner. 13. Now I proceed to deal with the points raised hereinabove in seriatim, of course, for the sake of convenience, repeating the point involved for determination: (1) whether the petitioners, who have been engaged after issuance of Govt. order No-26-F of 1994,dated 31-01-1994 in violation of para 1(d) thereof and dehors Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994 i.e. after 31st March 1994, are entitled to seek regularisation ? 14. By virtue of para 1(d) of Government order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31.1.1994 the practice of engagement of Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers has been withdrawn, retaining only the concept of Casual Labourers /Seasonal labourers for specific development works and the engagement being on muster Rolls. It is evident therefrom - that from 31st January, 1994 the officers of the State were not having any authority to engage Daily Rated Workers. Only those of the Daily Rated Workers, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria contained in Rule 4 of SRO 64 of 1994, are eligible for seeking regularisation of their service. Similarly Rule 7 places a restriction on engagement of Daily Rated workers/ Work Charged employees after 3lst March 1994. It envisages that no Field/Subordinate Officer shall have the power for engagement of Daily Rated Worker/ Work Charged Employees in any department and, thus the existing delegation, if any, stood withdrawn. Proviso to this Rule further specifies unambiguously that the competent authority may engage casual labour or seasonable labour in any of the departments to be specified by the Notification issued from time to time by the Government and such labourer shall be on Muster Rolls for payment of wages. Proviso to this Rule further specifies unambiguously that the competent authority may engage casual labour or seasonable labour in any of the departments to be specified by the Notification issued from time to time by the Government and such labourer shall be on Muster Rolls for payment of wages. It is not made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the mandate of Rule 7, respondents were having jurisdiction or otherwise competent to engage the petitioners as Daily Rated Workers after the promulgation of SRO 64 of 1994. The petitioners have been engaged by the Field/ Sub-ordinate Officers. It is also not made out that in terms of the provision of Rule 7, the Government by notification has nominated or appointed any competent authority in the departments, where in the petitioners have been engaged, for making such engagements. It is thus made out that the petitioners fall under this category, being not engaged or appointed by an officer specified as an authority nominated in any notification issued in terms of proviso to Rule 7. Engagement of such petitioners, therefore, is in violation of rules and consequently, illegal and such engagement does not create any enforceable right in them. Therefore, they are not found entitled to the relief prayed for by them. It would be advantageous to quote here the law-laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Motilal and others, 1996 (7) SCC 481 wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: "11. Thus it is apparent that a daily wage or casual worker against a particular post when acquires a temporary Status having worked against the said post for specified number of days does not acquire a right to be regularised against the said post. He can be considered for regularisation in accordance with the rules...." (2) Whether the petitioners, who are continuing on the strength of the interim orders of the court, have any right to continue and to be regularised? 15. It is the, cardinal principle of law that any direction of the court should not prejudice the cause of either of the parties. The petitioners have been directed to be continued by interim orders with a purpose to maintain balance and equity. An interim direction of the court is co-terminus with the final determination of the case. 15. It is the, cardinal principle of law that any direction of the court should not prejudice the cause of either of the parties. The petitioners have been directed to be continued by interim orders with a purpose to maintain balance and equity. An interim direction of the court is co-terminus with the final determination of the case. Interim direction does not improve the case of a litigant. This proposition of law is no more res integra and has been settled by the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Raj karan Singh, 1998 (8) SCC 529 wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under; ".......Besides, merely because a person continues under the interim orders of the Court, such continuance on the post cannot and, in this case, does not confer on him any right for continuance, it does not enhance his case for regularisation. It is only an interim arrangement pending decision by the Court and cannot disturb the position in law or equities, as on the date of the petition." 16. Applying the law, as aforesaid, the petitioners who are continuing on the strength of the interim orders of the court, but are not otherwise eligible or have been engaged in violation of the relevant rules mentioned hereinabove, do not have any right to continue or to be regularised. (3) Whether the petitioners, who have obtained interim orders from the court but had been ousted prior to such interim orders, the petitioners who were engaged after 31st January 1994 but have been ousted in terms of Government order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 2nd February, 2001 are entitled to seek regularisation ? 17. The respondent-State noticed that some of the officers of the State, without any jurisdiction or authority and in derogation of the provisions of Government order No. 25-F of 1994 and Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994, have illegally appointed/engaged number of Daily Rated Workers. With a view to implement the provisions of the Government order No. 25-F of 1994 and SRO 64 of 1994, the Respondents, as a matter of policy, issued Government order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 2nd February, 2001 to oust all such persons engaged illegally and Without any authority. These labourers approached the court and sought their continuation by interim directions. These labourers approached the court and sought their continuation by interim directions. Since all these petitioners, falling under this categories have been engaged in derogation of the Rules, have no right to continue as the illegal appointments /engagements do not vest any enforceable right in them, therefore, they are not entitled to continue or to seek regularisation. So is the case of those of the petitioners who have been ousted prior to their coming to the court and before the issuance of Govt.order No. 144 - GAD of 2001. The action of the respondents to outset such petitioner in terms of Government order dated 2nd February, 2001 is in line with the Rules and justified. (4) Whether the petitioners, who had performed election duty and engaged, after 31st January, 1994, are entitled to seek regularisation ? 18. Some of the petitioners have performed election duty have been validly engaged prior to 31st of January, 1994 whereas there are others who have performed election duty but have been engaged after 31st January, 1994 in breach of the rules. In the year 1996 the Government of Jammu and Kashmir ordered the grant of package of incentives for the State Government Employers, including the Daily wages earners who opted to perform Poll duty in the Valley. This package of incentives was announced in the shape of Government order No. 355-GAD of 1996 dated 30th April, 1996. In so far relevant, the Government order is extracted below :-- " In addition to the above, it is further ordered:-- (i) Daily wagers working in the Government and who have not yet completed the prescribed daily wage service of seven years for regularisation as on 31-03-1996 and who satisfactorily perform of election duty in the Valley could be considered for regularization..." 19. It is thus clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid provision of the Government order that a Daily Rated Worker, who was engaged prior to 31st of January, 1994 but had not completed seven years uninterrupted service as such as on 31.3.1996 and performed satisfactorily election duty, is entitled to seek regularization even without having completed the seven years continuous service. They are entitled to such benefit as an incentive in terms of the aforesaid Government order. They are entitled to such benefit as an incentive in terms of the aforesaid Government order. However, those of the Daily Rated Workers, who were engaged after 31st January, 1994, are not entitled to seek the benefit of incentive under the said Government order for the simple reason that the Government order does not come to their aid. The provision relating to Daily Rated Workers as contained in the Government order dated 10th April, 1996 quoted above is couched in a language which clearly states that only those of the Daily Wagers, and validly appointed would be entitled to such benefit. The intention of the Government, while issuing the aforesaid order, was not, and could not be, to validate the engagements of Daily Wagers who were not validly, engaged. No other interpretation is possible to stretch the incentive in question to the Daily-wagers who have been engaged dehors the relevant Rules. Such of the petitioners, therefore, are not entitled to seek regularisation or even continuance on the ground of their having satisfactorily performed the election duty. 5. Whether such of the petitioners, who were taken into preventive detention and after release therefrom have been re-engaged, are entitled to be considered for regularisation taking into account the said period also to meet the requirement of uninterrupted and continuous service of seven years ? 20. For seeking regularisation a Daily Rated Worker has to work as such for seven years. Seven years working does not mean, working for different spells of time to complete a period of seven years. It means active discharge of duties by a Daily Rated worker uninterruptedly and continuously for a period of seven years. Intermittent engagement stretched over a period of seven years or so on does not amount to continuous working for seven years. 21. That apart, preventive detention is directed on certain ground sin terms of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. It does not disqualify a person to seek employment; provided his character antecedents, which form the very basis for becoming a good public servant, are found to be upto the mark by the employer. For the period a Daily-wager has not physically worked, whether on account of his preventive detention or otherwise, he cannot be treated as on duty. It does not disqualify a person to seek employment; provided his character antecedents, which form the very basis for becoming a good public servant, are found to be upto the mark by the employer. For the period a Daily-wager has not physically worked, whether on account of his preventive detention or otherwise, he cannot be treated as on duty. In other words, the period spent in preventive detention cannot be counted towards the continuous service required to make a daily-wager eligible to seek regularisation. Therefore, the plea that the preventive detention period of such daily -wagers has to be treated as having been spent on duty is not tenable. For the purpose of seeking regularisation, a daily rated worker has to work uninterruptedly for seven years. However, it may be observed that such a daily wager can seek consideration for regularisation of his services after he completes seven years of continuous service after his re-engagement including the period of daily-wage service rendered by him earlier to his detention; provided, of course, his re-engagement is valid. However, while considering such of the petitioners/cases for regularisation it is incumbent upon the employer/concerned authorities to see as to whether such a Daily Rated Worker can all prove a suitable and fit public servant upon verification of his character and antecedents and other requirements as deemed fit by the respondents in terms of the rules governing the subject-matter. 6. Whether the petitioners, whose engagements are fake or managed by, relations, or whose date of appointment/engagement is disputed being incorrect, can be ordered to be considered for regularisation on the basis of such dates of engagement relied upon by them ? 22. Such of the cases involve disputed questions of facts. In writ jurisdiction, the court has no mechanism to establish these facts, Such cases have to be decided by the respondents on the basis of their record, of course, providing an opportunity to such petitioners to make available whatever evidence is available in their possession to prove their claim with regard to the genuineness of the engagement, the date of engagement and continuance etcetra. Respondents will provide an opportunity of fifteen days to such petitioners, to furnish such evidence and, in case the evidence is not furnished their cases shall be considered by the respondents on the basis of their record presuming that the concerned petitioner has no evidence to establish his claim. Respondents will provide an opportunity of fifteen days to such petitioners, to furnish such evidence and, in case the evidence is not furnished their cases shall be considered by the respondents on the basis of their record presuming that the concerned petitioner has no evidence to establish his claim. However, taking into consideration the circumstances attendant to the first opportunity granted by the respondents to such petitioners, which could not be availed of by them the respondents would provide another reasonable opportunity. 23. So far as the Seasonal or casual Labourers are concerned, such labourer are engaged to work for specified seasons; for instance during the apple or mango season. Such labourers are engaged to work for four to five months. That is why such labourers are called as Seasonal workers . Casual Labourers are engaged to attend to casual works as per need. Their engagement may be for some days or some months, depending upon the exigency and requirement. These labourer in terms of the Rules are not entitled to seek regularisation of their services. However, wherever such persons have been engaged in terms of Rule 7 of SRO 64 of 1994 and continued, they can be continued till their services are needed. 7. Whether the Daily Rated Workers, whose services have been regularised against class IV posts, or those who are seeking their regularisation against posts carrying pay scales higher than Class IV posts, can seek regularisation against the posts carrying higher pay scales ? 24. A Daily Rated Worker, if possessing the eligibility in terms of Rule 4 of SRO 64 of 1994, his services are to be regularised in terms of Rule 5 thereof. Services of some of the petitioners have been regularised in the pay scale of class IV posts, but they seek a direction to the respondents that, since they were discharging their duties as Works supervisors, therefore, their services should have been regularised against similar higher pay-scale posts such as Works Supervisor etc. Similar proposition of fact and law was before the court, where the petitioners were Daily Rated workers and their services were regularised against class IV posts. They approached the court seeking identical reliefs as prayed for in some of the petitions at hand. The writ petition was dismissed. Similar proposition of fact and law was before the court, where the petitioners were Daily Rated workers and their services were regularised against class IV posts. They approached the court seeking identical reliefs as prayed for in some of the petitions at hand. The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners in that writ petition filed LPA N0.233 of 2002 titled Mohammad Amin Parra and others verses State of J&K and others, decided on 25th December, 2000. The Letters Patent Bench, while dealing with this plea, observed as under:-- "The appellants admittedly were working as Daily Rated Workers when the Government promulgated the policy contained in SRO 64 of 1994, for regularisation of the services of the Daily Rated Workers, who have completed seven years continuously. The respondents have regularised the services of the appellants in terms of Rule 5 of SRO 64 of 1994 which reads as: ................ This provision of law provides that the appellants being Daily Rated Workers were eligible for appointment in the regular pay scale of class IV i.e. Rs. 750-940. The appellants have accordingly been appointed as Helpers in the said pay scale. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellants should have been regularised against the post of Works Supervisors which carries higher pay scale. The appellants as Daily Wagers were not working against available posts of Works Supervisors in a particular nay scale, Therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of the proviso attached to rule 5 of SRO 64 of 1994. The next argument of the learned counsel that the appellants -Cervices should have been regularised as Works Supervisors in terms of the provisions of SRO 59 of 1990 is also mis-placed. SRO 59 of 1990 deals with the categorisation of the posts of Works Supervisors and other technical posts. It does not provide that the Daily Wagers if working as Works Supervisors shall be regularised, as Works Supervisors." 25. The proviso appended to Rule 5 of SRO 64 of 1994 envisages that if any of the categories has higher pay Scale to that of class IV post, such employees shall be placed in the higher pay scale after two years. The petitioners were Daily Rated Workers and not employees. The word `employee used in the provision has reference to the establishment of Work charged employees and not the Daily Rated Workers. The petitioners were Daily Rated Workers and not employees. The word `employee used in the provision has reference to the establishment of Work charged employees and not the Daily Rated Workers. Therefore, the petitioners whose services have been regularised against class IV posts in terms of Rule 5 and those who are seeking regularisation against higher posts than class IV posts are not found entitled to the relief prayed for by them and their claim is not justified. 8. Whether the contingent paid workers and persons working on consolidated wages can seek regularisation of their services, being neither Daily Rated Workers nor employed against posts and only being paid out of the local contingent fund or charged on the work ? 26. A contingent paid worker/consolidated wage earner is not a, Daily Rated Worker. He is employed by the employer or the authorities of the State to do a particular work such as cleaning of the School before the daily session of the School commences or such like other duties. They are working for an hour or so and not for full working hours . They are paid out of the local contingent funds of the establishment and are not working against any post. Issuing a direction to respondents to consider such workers for regularisation would mean to direct the respondents to create posts for their absorption. The contingent workers even if doing the work for full working hours of the day and charged on the work will be rendered jobless on the completion of the work. That is not the case with Daily Rated Workers engaged by the Departments where there is a consistence need of work in public utility services. The case of the- contingent paid worker is also not covered under SRO 64 of 1994. Such petitioner are, therefore, not entitled to seek regularisation. This proposition of law has been laid dawn by this Court also in Zoona Bibi v. State of J&K, (2001)1 JKLR 44 in which it has been held: "The case of the petitioner is not covered under SRO 64 of 1994 which contains Rule 5 for regularization of the services of daily wagers who have completed 7 years uninterruptedly. The petitioner is, not a daily wager and is being paid out of the contingent fund. She is not similarly situated vis-a-vis daily wager. The petitioner is, not a daily wager and is being paid out of the contingent fund. She is not similarly situated vis-a-vis daily wager. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of aforesaid Division Bench judgement. Another aspect of the case is that the petitioners services cannot be regularsied unless there is a post. The petitioner is doing the work of cleaning the School for an hour or so not working, for full working hours. It is settled law that no direction for regularisation of the services can be issued, unless there is existing post against which the petitioner has been working." 27. Now I proceed to deal with the Daily Rated workers who migrated to Jammu on account of militancy. In this behalf, it would be appropriate to quote hereunder Government order No. 27-F of 1997 dated 14th January, 1997: "Government Order No. 27-F of 1997 Dated 14.1.1997. In relaxation to Rule 2 (e) of Jammu and Kashmir daily rated workers/work charged employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 it is hereby ordered that:-- 1. The daily, rated workers/work charged employees (Migrants) who had completed seven years or more continuous working prior to their migration from the Valley and have been re-engaged/re-deployed in the same department outside the valley even after a break beyond the admissible limit and are continuously working as such in the same department, may be regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1994 provided they were re-engaged/redeployed on or before 01-04-1994 in the same department and are continuously working and paid from the date of their re-engagement/ redeployment; 2. Daily rated workers/work charged employees (Migrants) who had not completed seven years continuous service on the date of their migration from the Valley but have been re-engaged/redeploved in the same Department after breaks beyond admissible limit and are continuously working as such in the same department, may be regularised from Ist April, of the subsequent year(s) provided that they have completed the prescribed continuous working of seven years or more on or before 31st March of the proceeding year without taking into account the break from the date of migration till the date of re-engagement/redeployment in same department for computation of seven years continuous working." 28. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Government order reveals that it carves out an exception to the general mandate contained in the Rules of 1994. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Government order reveals that it carves out an exception to the general mandate contained in the Rules of 1994. It contemplates and deals with two different categories of the Daily Rated Workers/ Work Charged Employees who, had to migrated from the Valley viz: (a) those of the Daily Rated Workers/ Work Charged Employees who on the date, of their migration outside the Valley had completed seven or more continuous working; and (b) those of the Daily Rated Workers/work charged Employees who on the date of their migration outside the Valley had not completed seven years continuous working; In relation to the Daily Rated Workers falling in the first category (a) above the following conditions have been laid down in the Government order on the fulfillment of which such a Daily Rated Worker could be regularised: (i) they should have been re-engaged/redeployed in the same department outside the valley; (ii) such re-engagement/redeployment should have taken place before Ist April, 1994; (iii) they should have been continuously working till date they should have been Paid from the date of their re-engagement/redeploymert in the same department; In the case of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees who had not completed seven years continuous service on the- date of their migration the conditions enumerated above have not been made applicable. In their case the only condition laid down is that they should have been re-engaged/redeployed in the same Department. The conditions `outside the valley and before Ist April, 1994 are not applicable to them. In other words, a Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employee who had not completed seven years continuous service on the date of migration from the valley and was re-engaged/redeployed in the same department, notwithstanding the extent of the break, and after re-engagement has been continuously working in the same department, is entitled to regularisation after completing seven years of working and for computation of seven years continuous working the break from the date of migrated till the date of re-engagement is not to be taken into account. Petitioner in SWP No. 871/2000 falls under this category. As per the objections filed on behalf of the respondents, the Petitioner was engaged with effect from 5th July, 1988. He continued upto 18th January, 1990 and was re-engaged on 8th August, 1994 in the same department and ever since has been continuously working. Petitioner in SWP No. 871/2000 falls under this category. As per the objections filed on behalf of the respondents, the Petitioner was engaged with effect from 5th July, 1988. He continued upto 18th January, 1990 and was re-engaged on 8th August, 1994 in the same department and ever since has been continuously working. Therefore, in terms of Government order dated 14th January 1997 he is found entitled to seek regularisation after completing seven years or more working, on or before 31st March of the subsequent year without taking into account the break from the date of migration till the date of re-engagement for computation of seven years continuous working. These writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the respondents to accord consideration for regularisation of services of the writ Petitioners, who have been found entitled to regularisation as discussed in detail in this judgement. The respondents shall take steps and process their cases for regularisation of their services and accomplish the exercise and issue formal orders within a period of six months. Writ petitions of those of the petitioners who have been found not entitled to regularisation as discussed and observed in the course of this judgment, are dismissed.