1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The short controversy involved in this petition is that whether the writ petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of SRO 43, on the grounds that his father who was a daily wager died before his services were regularized by the department. It appears that father of petitioner was working in the Department of Public Health Engineering as daily wager and his case was pending adjudication for regularization, however, his services were regularized after his death. 3. Petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment within time in terms of SRO 43 of 1994, but respondents have deaf ear constraining the petitioner to file writ petition. 4. Virtually respondents have admitted the case of the petitioner but have resisted the same on the sole ground, that, the father of the petitioner was daily wager was not a permanent employee, thus case of the petitioner was not covered under SRO 43. It is apt to reproduce Para 10 of the reply herein:- "10. In reply to Para-19, it is submitted that the petitioner's father died on 14.07.2008 prior to the regularization order which was issued vide Govt. order No. 23-PW (Hyd) of 2009, dated 22.01.2009 with immediate effect. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of death of petitioner's father, deceased was not holding the permanent post in Public Health Engineering Department. The petitioner is not eligible for appointment under the provisions of SRO-43. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner's father before the Hon'ble High Court vide contempt No. 156/2001 titled Muhammad Yasin Sheikh along with other similarly situated incumbents for retrospective effect of their regularization is still subjudice before the Hon'ble court. The retrospective effect of the regularization yet. 5. The controversy has already been dealt with and resolved by this court in case titled Farooq Ahmad Ganai v. State and others reported as 2006 (II) SLJ 783: 2007 (1) JKJ HC-207. It is apt to reproduce Para 4 and 5 of the said judgment herein:- "4. The retrospective effect of the regularization yet. 5. The controversy has already been dealt with and resolved by this court in case titled Farooq Ahmad Ganai v. State and others reported as 2006 (II) SLJ 783: 2007 (1) JKJ HC-207. It is apt to reproduce Para 4 and 5 of the said judgment herein:- "4. This line of approach also finds support from a Division Bench judgment of this court passed "Ashok Kumar v. State & Ors" reported as 2003 (II) SLJ 475 :2003 (Supp.) JKJ HC-93 (DB), where under while elaborating upon rights of daily wagers to seek continuation and regularization, the bench while drawing conclusions observed in Sub-Para 45 (15) of the judgment:- "45(15). That a person can claim compassionate appointment if the deceased employee was entitled to regularization but was not so regularized.” and the observation fully covers the instant case. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the conclusion is that respondents ate under aforesaid court order obliged to consider petitioner's case under SRO 43 of 1994 subject of course his eligibility there under and in that view of the matter, the position projected by respondents in the statement of facts where under they have quoted the concerned Assistant Director as having declined petitioner's case, appear to be woefully incorrect." 6. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court also, in case titled Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K and ors. reported as 2003 (II) SLJ 475 : 2003 (4) JKJ HC-93, has laid down the same principle. 7. In the given circumstances, and in view of the reflected position of law, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Compassionate Appointment in terms of SRO 43 of 1994 within three months from Ihc date copy of the judgment is served upon them. 8. Disposed of along with all CMPs.