1. Claiming to have been appointed as a Daily Rated Worker way back in 1988 and having participated in elections of 1996, the petitioner pleads that as such he was entitled to regularisation in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Grievance projected is that, respondents have not regularised his services and accordingly he seeks a direction for the same. 2. In their reply the respondents while admitting petitioners engagement as casual/seasonal labourer since 1983 plead that since petitioner was not engaged as Daily Wager he would not be entitled to engagement in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, particularly because he did not seven years continuous service to his credit because his engagement was throughout punctuated with regular breaks. During course of their threshold submissions both counsel have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings. 3. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that previously also the petitioner had agitated his case through swp no.1121/05 disposed of on 8.6.2006 with a direction to respondents for his consideration in light of SRO 64 of 1994 read with Government order no.639-GAD of 1996 dated 9.8.1996 if he was covered by same, consequent whereupon respondents passed a consideration order under No. DS/JK-per-Court-05/329/1967-72 of 1996 dated 14.09.2006 wherein while observing that having been engaged as casual labourer the petitioner could not be considered under SRO 64 of 1994 or government order no.639-GAD of 1996 and dismissed his claim. It is this order that is impugned in this writ petition with a prayer for its quashment and direction upon respondents for fresh consideration of his case, on the ground that the consideration accorded as above did not conform to facts of the case. 4. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to notice certain contents of the "comprehensive factual report" purporting to have been furnished by appointed committee of respondent-department after the court orders aforesaid on basis whereof the impugned order is claimed to have been passed, whereunder the committee interalia observed, that on the date of his initial appointment petitioners age was within prescribed limits and he possessed the requisite technical qualification for the post because his work and conduct remained satisfactory during the period he was working as Daily Rated Worker and no disciplinary proceedings were over initiated against him. It was further observed that petitioner had also completed 7 years continuous period of working as DRW and had also performed election duty in 1996 while concluding the report, the committee recommended his case in following terms; "On the whole, the average period of working of the petitioner in the department is almost 10-11 months a year and he has worked in the department since March, 1988 and thus has rendered his services for about 18 years in the department of Sericulture though there are periodic breaks in his working period. He has worked almost for 20-25 days a month and sometimes worked for a full month i.e 30 days or 31 days. The breaks are usually in the months of January or February. The breaks might be due to the non-availability of fluids or worked in the Deptt. However the petitioner has .spent almost whole of his youth in the department of Sericulture and has rendered about 18 years of service in the department and as such deserves de-emphasizing in breaks and consideration on humanitarian grounds while taking into view the election duty rendered by him ...." 5. It would be appropriate to mention that the committee comprised of Joint Director, Dy. Director, Farm Manager and Legal Assistant of respondent-department and the consideration order purporting to have been passed by Director on basis thereof does not conform to the recommendations made therein particularly the observation that petitioner has spent his entire youth in service of the department which spanned over 22 years by now. This fact by itself strongly recommends his regularisation particularly because as a daily rated worker he would not be wholly excluded from consideration zone in terms of SRO 64, merely due to breaks which in view of the service rendered by him and certified as exemplary by appointed committee should have been ignored particularly in view of the petitioners participation in the Assembly Elections of 1996 which was attended by promise of the Government for regularisation of daily rated workers. 6. 6. In over all consideration of the case and circumstances cataloged above I feel that respondents refusal to regularise petitioners service at this juncture after having extracted blood from his veins for as long as 22 years is certainly not justified particularly because it would amount to share exploitation of his helplessness by throwing him away like a torn apparel after ruthless use, which should not be the conduct of a welfare State with its employees in whatever capacity they serve. 7. In conclusion, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent-department to regularise petitioners service in the lowest cadre post available according to his eligibility and academic qualification. Matter stands accordingly disposed of.