Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers in the Social Forestry Project aided by the World Bank. The project was wound up vide Government Order No. 640-GAD of 2001 dated 14.06.2001, as a result thereof, the respondents were disengaged. As against the order of dis-engagement, they filed writ petition (SWP No. 1080/2002) praying therein for regularization of their services against Class-IV posts and for release of wages w.e.f. February, 2001, with a further prayer that their services shall not be dispensed with. 2. The writ petition was dismissed vide detailed judgment dated 05.06.2009, as the project was wound up, therefore, nothing survived in the project. It was also observed by the learned Dingle Judge that the respondents would not be entitled to any regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed Review Petition which has been allowed vide judgment dated 05.02.2010 in view of the error which was apparent on the face of the record, i.e. vide Government Order No. 481-FST of 2004 dated 28.10.2004, Government Order No. 640-GAD of 2001 dated 14.06.2001 was withdrawn, as a result thereof, Social Forestry Project undertaken with the aid of World Bank would be Government Department, namely, 'Department of Social Forestry". 4. Learned Single Judge issued direction to the effect that the appellants (respondents therein) shall accord consideration to the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services within a period of three months. 5. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 05.02.2010 rendered in Review (SWP)No.15/2009, instant Letters Patent Appeals has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the respondents have been engaged as casual labourers in the Project in the year 1995 i.e. after imposition of ban i.e. after Govt. Order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31.01.1994 and are no more on the rolls of the Department w.e.f. 2001, therefore, SRO 64 of 1994 is not applicable. 7. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that they have been engaged in the year 1995, they are entitled to regularization as SRO 64 of 1994 would not in strict sense provide for banning engagement or regularisation. The only requirement is that the person engaged who completes seven years shall be entitled to regularization. 8. 7. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that they have been engaged in the year 1995, they are entitled to regularization as SRO 64 of 1994 would not in strict sense provide for banning engagement or regularisation. The only requirement is that the person engaged who completes seven years shall be entitled to regularization. 8. Government order No- 26-F of 1994 dated 31.01.1994, issued in pursuance to Administrative Council Decision No. 14 dated 24.1.1994, would provide for regularization of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees. The Daily Rated Workers who have completed seven years continuous period of working or who may complete seven years period on 31st March, 1994 were to be appointed in regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with effect from 01.04.1994. Similarly Work Charged Employees, who had completed or would complete seven years con tenuous service as such on 31st March, 1994 were to be brought on regular temporary establishment with effect from 01.04.1994 in the corresponding pay scale. A Committee has been constituted to approve creation of posts after proper scrutiny of the proposal from the concerned departments. The order further provides that the practice of engagement of daily wager/daily rated worker in the Government in any form is withdrawn retaining only the concept of 'casual labour/seasonal labour' for specified development departments. The engagement of such casual/seasonal labour shall be on the muster roll for payment of wages and no engagement/appointment orders were to be issued. The modalities were to be worked out as a part of the scheme to be issued in the statutory form. The existing delegation of power for engagement of daily wagers/work charged employees as was available to the field officer was also withdrawn. It also provides that for future, the work charged posts should be created by the government in consultation with the Finance/Planning Department. The order further provides that the Finance Department shall work out detailed rules for regularizetion of daily rated workers and submit the same to the Administrative Council for approval. The scheme of regularization was also made applicable mutatis mutandis to the public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies. 9. Subsequently the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 were notified by the Finance Department vide SRO 64 dated 24th March, 1994 which have come into force with effect from 01.04.1994. The scheme of regularization was also made applicable mutatis mutandis to the public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies. 9. Subsequently the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 were notified by the Finance Department vide SRO 64 dated 24th March, 1994 which have come into force with effect from 01.04.1994. Rule 3 would provide for creation of posts for the purpose of regularisation of Daily Rated Workers or Work Charged Employees. Rule 4 prescribes the eligibility criteria for regularisation. Rule 7 provides that with the commencement of these Rules, no Field/subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of a Daily Rated Worker or Work Charged Employee in the department and the existing delegation, if any, in this regard is withdrawn. Proviso to Rule 7 would provide 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. 10. Conjoint reading of Rule 3 and Rule 8 provides that the Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees who have completed seven years as on 31.3.1994 shall be regularized whereas Rule 8 provides that the policy shall also apply to such Daily Rated Workers and Work Charged Employees who may not have completed seven years but may complete in the subsequent financial year. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is stated that no Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employee could be engaged after 01.04.1994 but what happened is that the Daily Rated Workers/Daily Wagers/Casual Labourers have been engaged even after 01.04.1994 who continued up to the year 2001. 12. Confronted with the same position, Govt. order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001 was issued, wherein, after reference to Govt. order No. 26-F of 1994 dated 31.01.1994, it has been observed that it has come to the notice of the Government that a number of daily rated workers have been appointed even after the imposition of ban in the department in total disregard of the Govt. order No. 26-F and the rules by some officer who had no jurisdiction or authority to do so, then reference is made to Cabinet Decision No. 131 dated 31.01.2001 followed by Govt. order No. 26-F and the rules by some officer who had no jurisdiction or authority to do so, then reference is made to Cabinet Decision No. 131 dated 31.01.2001 followed by Govt. order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001 to the effect that the appointments unauthorized made after ban, if they are performing duties, shall be paid their salary up to 31.01.2001 after which their services shall be terminated as their appointments being unauthorized. Then it is mentioned that all the daily rated workers who have been appointed after imposition of ban i.e. 31.3.1994 and are still performing their duties shall be paid wages up to 31st of January, 2001 and thereafter they shall be disengaged. 13. As against order No. 144-GAD of 2001 dated 02.02.2001, the daily wagers/work charged employees, who were aggrieved, filed number of writ petitions. Finally the judgment passed in those writ petitions were challenged by medium of bunch of LPAs with lead case Ashok Kumar v. State of J&K & Ors. which have been decided vide judgment dated 26.07.2002, reported in 2003(11) S.L.J 475,2003 (4) JKJ [HC] 93. In the reported judgment, position vis-a-vis right of casual labour/daily wagers/adhoc employees, has been taken note of and as many as 15 directions were issued as contained in Para 45 of the judgment. It may not be out of place to mention here that the cut-off date has also been extended to 06.11.2001 in lerms of Govt. order No. 1285-GAD of 2001 dated 06.11.2001 which has been issued in pursuance to Cabinet Decision No. 135/11(B) dated 10.09.2001. The above referred judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by medium of Civil Appeal No. 9298 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 9299 of 2003. While disposing of Civil Appeal No. 9299 of 2003, the following order has been passed:- "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (supra). In our view, this judgment has no application in view of the fact that the respondents are employed by the State Government and are claiming the benefit of a scheme formulated by the Notification dated 31st January, 1994, as modified by Notification dated 6th November, 2001. The High Court is perfectly justified in its judgment. In our view, this judgment has no application in view of the fact that the respondents are employed by the State Government and are claiming the benefit of a scheme formulated by the Notification dated 31st January, 1994, as modified by Notification dated 6th November, 2001. The High Court is perfectly justified in its judgment. We are satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court needs no interference at our hands. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs." 14. What would emerge from above is that the daily rated workers/work charged employees who were appointed after imposition of ban and continued beyond ban period were given benefit of notification dated 6th November, 2001, which, in-effect, would mean that the daily rated workers/work charged employees engaged even after 01.04.1994 till 6th November, 2001, were also entitled to be regularised in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-Charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994. 15. Again another aspect regarding writ petitioners is that they are stated to have been engaged as casual labours. The question for consideration is as to whether they, in-effect, were casual labours or under the style of casual labourers, in effect, they were working as daily rated workers. Casual labour/Worker and Daily Rated Worker are defined under Section 2(b) and (f) of the Rules of 1994 which reads as under:- "(b) "Casual Labour/Worker" means a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual services to a Department. (f) "Daily Rated Worker" means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time." 16. The marking difference in between two clauses is that the engagement of the casual labour has to be occasional otherwise daily wages payable to the daily rated workers or the casual labours is the same but casual labour will gel daily wages only for such period for which he shall be occasionally engaged whereas engagement of daily rated workers is not on occasional basis. 17. In the instant case writ petitioners styled to have been engaged as casual labours, in-effect, were daily rated workers because they were not engaged occasionally. They have been working continuously. 17. In the instant case writ petitioners styled to have been engaged as casual labours, in-effect, were daily rated workers because they were not engaged occasionally. They have been working continuously. Division Bench of this Court in the reported judgment, as referred above, at para 40 have dealt with the position of casual labours, same is reproduced herein-below: "CASUAL EMPLOYEES: The cases of casual employees be also examined. In this regard, it would be apt to note the dictionary meaning of the work 'casual'. In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, the meaning of word 'casual' has been defined as "occurring without regularity", "occasional", "impermanent" and "as employment for irregular periods". A perusal of above meaning would indicate that where an employee has continued to work for sufficiently long period, then, it would not be apt to call him having been appointed on casual basis. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was considered in Piara Singh's case (supra). The relevant observations made in para 51 of the judgment stand already noticed above For facility of reference, the relevant observations made in this paragraph are being quoted again:- "If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years- a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation, while doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person." 18. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above, the writ petitioners having been working for long period are also entitled to be considered for regularizetion. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed, judgment impugned dated 05.02.2010 providing for according consideration to the cases of the writ petitioners for regularization of their services is maintained. The appellants are directed to consider cases of the writ petitioners for regularization within three months from today.