1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand arises out of writ Court Judgment dated 6th June, 2011, in SWP No. 626/2005 titled Nazir Ahmad Bhat v. State and others, whereby the writ Court has directed the respondents to regularize service of the petitioner-respondent herein, within three months from the date copy of order was served upon them. 2. The controversy essentially relates to nomenclature of the position held by the respondent. The respondent was on 6th July, 1988, engaged as Plumber on daily wage basis in Sub District Hospital, Bhaderwah. The experience certificate issued by Block Medical Officer, SDH, Bhaderwah on 21st June, 2002, attached with the writ petition as annexure B, records respondent to have been working on "daily wage basis" w.e.f. 6th July, 1988. After working as Plumber for about seven years, the respondent filed writ petition being SWP No. 158/1994, for direction to respondents to regularize his service. The petition was disposed of on 27th April, 1995, with a direction to respondents to process writ petitioner's/respondent's case for regularization, provided it fell within the purview of SRO 64 of 1994. The respondents however, avoided to accord consideration to his case, constraining him to file another petition registered as SWP No. 1830/2001. This petition was disposed of on 16th August, 2001, with a direction similar to one whereby earlier writ petition was disposed of. 3. The failure on part of respondents-appellants herein, to comply with the writ Court order, left no option for the respondent but to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the Court. The appellants in their reply to the contempt petition took the stand that as the case was genuine and within the parameters of SRO 64 of 1994, recommendation was made to the Finance Department to accord consideration to writ petitioner/respondent's regularization. It was pleaded that the Finance Department of State Government did not agree with the recommendation made, as according to it respondent was engaged on adhoc basis and therefore, not entitled to regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. 4. Faced with rejection of his claim, the respondent once again turned to this Court with SWP No. 626/2005. The writ petition was disposed of on 6th June, 2011—this time with a direction to the respondents to regularize service of the respondent/writ petitioner herein. 5. 4. Faced with rejection of his claim, the respondent once again turned to this Court with SWP No. 626/2005. The writ petition was disposed of on 6th June, 2011—this time with a direction to the respondents to regularize service of the respondent/writ petitioner herein. 5. The appellants aggrieved with the aforesaid writ Court Judgment, have come up with Letters Patent Appeal on hand and seek setting aside of the Judgment on the grounds set out in the appeal. 6. We have gone through the appeal as also writ record. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 7. The appellants admit that the respondent was on 6th July, 1988, engaged as Plumber on daily wage basis. They however, insist that respondent's status was changed from daily rated worker to that of contingent paid worker by an officer superior to Block Medical Officer and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit available under SRO 64 of 1994. 8. The record before the trial Court however, belies the appellants' stand. The respondent/writ petitioner as already stated was engaged as Plumber on daily wage basis. The experience certificate issued by Block Medical Officer SDH, Bhaderwah—Drawing and Disbursing Officer on 21st June 2002, appended as annexure B to the petition, certified that the respondent was working on daily wage basis in Sub District Hospital, Bhaderwah w.e.f. 6th July, 1988 till date. The certificate issued was neither controverted nor disowned by the appellants. The respondent on the date of filing of the writ petition admittedly was being paid as daily rated worker. In the circumstances, there was no merit in the stand taken by the appellants in opposition to the writ petition. 9. The writ Court against the above backdrop, was right in holding the respondent entitled to the regularization in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994, notified as SRO 64 of 1994. The appellants cannot draw any support from the Judgments reported as Anjum Noore Bano v. State of J&K 2000 SLJ 150, Abdul Gani Wani v. State of J&K and Ors. 2007 (2) JKJ-60 (HC), Ashiq Hussain v. State of J&K 2008 (3) JKJ HC 84: 2008 SLJ 624, Ali Mohammad Hajam v. State of J&K 2004 SLJ 89: 2003 (2) JKJ HC-140 (DB) and State of J&K and ors. v. Prithvi Raj and Ors. 2007 (2) JKJ-60 (HC), Ashiq Hussain v. State of J&K 2008 (3) JKJ HC 84: 2008 SLJ 624, Ali Mohammad Hajam v. State of J&K 2004 SLJ 89: 2003 (2) JKJ HC-140 (DB) and State of J&K and ors. v. Prithvi Raj and Ors. 2007 KLJ 227 : 2007 (2) JKJ HC-401 (DB), in as much as the facts of the present case are markedly different from facts of the reported cases. 10. We in the circumstances do not find any reason to take a view different from one taken by the writ Court. The appeal, is accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected CMA(s).