Per Massodi, J.:- 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. 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 not taken notice of the detailed enquiry report, supporting the appellant's case that the respondent was neither engaged as a daily wager nor had completed seven years uninterrupted service on the date of filing the writ petition. The writ Court is said to have not taken notice of the detailed enquiry report, supporting the appellant's case that the respondent was neither engaged as a daily wager nor had completed seven years uninterrupted service on the date of filing the writ petition. The next ground urged to assail the writ Court judgment is that the judgment was rendered in absence of counsel for the appellants and thus, the appellants did not have adequate opportu­nity to project and explain factual aspects of the case in light of the official record. 6. We have gone through the appeal as also the writ record. The record produced by the appellants in view of Order dated 23rd July, 2010, has been gone through. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 7. The record made available by the appellants reveals that the respondent was engaged on 25th January, 1994. The stand of the appellants in the appeal that the respondent was engaged after 31st January, 1994 is thus, belied by the official record relied upon by the respondent. The only dispute, thus, relates to nature of engage­ment of the respondent. It is pertinent to point out that respondent No. 1 in March, 1994, took up a policy decision to order regularization of all the Daily Wagers/Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged employees who had completed seven years service and to prohibit the engagement of any Daily Wager after 31st January, 1994. The policy decision took shape by the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees (WCE) Regularization Rules 1994 notified vide SRO 64 of 20th March, 1994, the rules are applied to Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees engaged in the Department. Rule 4 lays down the eligibility criteria for regularization of a Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees. One of the conditions laid down under Rule 4 to make a Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employee to claim regularization, is seven years continuous period of working as a Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee or particularly as Daily rated Worker and particularly as Work Charged Employee. All the Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees, who on 31st March, 1994, completed seven years continuous period of working and fulfilled other conditions laid down under Rule 4, were to be appointed on regular basis with the pay-scale of Class-IV with effect from 01-04-1994. All the Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees, who on 31st March, 1994, completed seven years continuous period of working and fulfilled other conditions laid down under Rule 4, were to be appointed on regular basis with the pay-scale of Class-IV with effect from 01-04-1994. In terms of Rule 8, the Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees who had not completed seven years on 31st March, 1994, were to be considered for absorption at the end of the financial year in which they completed said period of continuous working. The respondent in the circum­stances, if, found to have been engaged as a Daily Wager on 25-01-1994, is entitled to the benefit of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. The only controversy that was to be resolved by the Writ Court pertained to the nature of engagement of the respondent. Once the respondent was found to have engaged as Daily Wager, the respondent having been engaged prior to 31st January, 1994 would become entitled to be considered for regularization. 8. There is no scope for any disagreement with the Writ Court that mere nomenclature is not decisive for opining on status of a worker engaged in any of the Government Departments. The word "Casual" in the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, is shown to mean "due to, or characterized by, or subject to chance" and the word "Casual Labourer/Worker" as "without permit employment, working when the chance comes". The engagement as Casual worker thus implies an engagement which may or may not continue depending upon the requirements. The expression "Casual Labourer/Worker" is denying under Rule 2(b) Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (WCE) Regularization Rules 1994, means a person who is engaged through an Appointment Order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual services to a Department. The "Daily Rated Worker" on the other hand, in terms of Rule 2(f) means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The differences between the "Casual Labour/Worker" and "Daily Rated Worker" thus lies in the nature of work rendered and also the rate of payment. The "Daily Rated Worker" on the other hand, in terms of Rule 2(f) means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time. The differences between the "Casual Labour/Worker" and "Daily Rated Worker" thus lies in the nature of work rendered and also the rate of payment. While "Casual Labour/Worker" is engaged for rendering casual service to a Department and may be paid at any rate not necessarily the rate sanctioned by the Government, the "Daily Rated Worker" is not engaged for rendering casual service to a Depart­ment and is to be paid at the rate sanctioned by the Government from time to time. In case, the worker is allowed to continue for sufficiently long time without his engagement being dependent upon chance or actual requirement of his service and is transferred from one position to another position, such worker, notwith­standing nomenclature used by the authority engaged, is to be taken as a daily wager and not a casual worker. In the present case, though the respondent was engaged as casual labour, the respondent continued to serve in the Office of Rural Development Department, Udhampur in different capacities after her initial en­gagement. The certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchari dated 31st May, 1999 would show that the respondent worked as a "Daily Rated Typist" in the Office of Block Development Officer, Panchari from February, 1994 till the date of certificate i.e. 31st May, 1999. The Order No. DPOU/99-2000/753 dated 16th October, 1999 reveals that District Panchayat, Udhampur attached the respondent mentioned in the order as a "Daily Wager" with the Office of District Panchayat Officer for one month with effect from 20-10-1999. The Deputy Director (Adm.) Rural Development Department, Jammu vide Order dated 5th October, 2000 sub­mitted bio-data of the respondent, shown in the order Estt/Camp/6841-42 as a "Daily Rated Worker", along with two other computer knowing officials to the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Srinagar. The Assistant Commissioner (Development) Udhampur vide No.Acdu/Estt/02/9380-81 dated 31st March, 2001 certified the respondent a "Daily Wager" to have remained present in his office in the month of March, 2001. The Order No. 15-ACDU of 2010 dated 20th May, 2010 allotted funds to the tune of Rs.0.73/- lacs in favour of Block Officer, Panchari, to meet the pending wages of the respondent shown as "Daily Rated Worker". The Order No. 15-ACDU of 2010 dated 20th May, 2010 allotted funds to the tune of Rs.0.73/- lacs in favour of Block Officer, Panchari, to meet the pending wages of the respondent shown as "Daily Rated Worker". The Assistant Commissioner, (Development) Udhampur vide No. Acdu/Estt-151/3690-91 dated 11-09-2001 sanctioned three weeks Maternity leave w.e.f. 06-08-2001 to 26-08-2001 under Article 157-A note-3 of the J&K Leave Rules 1979 in favour of the respondent. The Assistant Commissioner (Development) Udhampur Vide No. ACDU/Estt/09-10/537 dated 29th May, 2009 attach the respondent-"Daily Rated Worker" with his office because of her having knowhow of the computers and directed her to work in the Accounts section of the office. Her wages were directed to be drawn by the Block Development Officer, Panchari. The respondent was accordingly, relieved on 17th June, 2009 and under orders of Assistant Commissioner (Development) Udhampur remained attached with the office of Assistant Commissioner (Development), Udhampur during the months of November/December, 2009 and January/February, 2010. The official record per­taining to the service career of the respondent makes it sufficiently clear that the respondent was shifted/transferred from one office to another office and all along referred to as "Daily Rated Worker" and even granted Maternity Leave in terms of Article 157-A note-3 of the J&K Leave Rules 1979. 9. Having regard to the official record, it is abundantly clear that the respon­dent though called a "Casual Labour" in initial engagement order was allowed to continue without any interruption and all along treated as "Daily Rated Worker". The contention that the respondent was not paid for a particular period is not only belied by the certificate dated 31st May, 1999 issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchari, available on the official record but by itself, does not defeat the respondent's claim to her regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. The allegation that enquiry some record of Block Development Officer Panchari, was suspected to have been tempered with cannot be pressed into service by the respondent to deny regularization to the respondent, more so, when the official record all through from the date of engagement of the respondent refers to and treats the respondent as a "Daily Rated Worker". 10. So viewed, the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal to question the Writ Court judgment are bereft of any merit and cannot help the appellants to succeed in the appeal. 10. So viewed, the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal to question the Writ Court judgment are bereft of any merit and cannot help the appellants to succeed in the appeal. However, the Writ Court having found the respondent to have been engaged as a Daily Rated Worker on 25th January, 1994 i.e. before the cut off date and thus, to be entitled to be considered for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 ought not to have directed for regularization with effect from the date, the respondent completes seven years of service. The respondent though held to be entitled for regularization of her service is to satisfy conditions laid down in Rule 4, Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (WCE) regularization Rules 1994 and thereafter, regularized in accordance with Rule 8 of the said Rules. 11. Viewed thus, the Writ Court order to the extent, it relates to regularization of service of the respondent in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 does not call for any interference and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellants however, shall order regularization of the service of the respondent in accordance with Rule 4 and Rule 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (WCE) regularization Rules 1994. The appeal is disposed of accordingly along with connected CMPs.