Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 13.7.2001 passed in SWP No.1688 of 1998 wherein the respondent herein prayed to quash the order dated 22.8.1998 in and by which the service of the respondent was discontinued, with further prayer to give direction to the appellant to re-engage the respondent back in service with regularization and allow the respondent to continue in the post with all consequential benefits. 2. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the case of the respondent to accommodate the respondent in any vacancy which has arisen. It is also stated therein that if the cadre strength has gone down by one, then the respondent would be given the status which he was allowed prior to 1996 and he would be conferred the said status and adjusted accordingly. The said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of one month. The claim for adjustment of respondent on casual basis against the vacancy which may have now become available was also directed to be adjusted. 3. Against the said direction this appeal is preferred contending that the respondent was disengaged only due to the reduction in establishment and the ban imposed by the Government on engagement of any type of casual labour; that the respondent did not complete 240 days in a calendar year for two calendar years, which is the pre-requisite for regularization; and that the respondent was junior-most. The respondent was paid one month pay of Rs.2,958/- in lieu of notice for discontinuation of service and was also paid compensation of Rs.1,479/- on completion of period of engagement in the year 1997. The respondent accepted the said amounts and thereafter only filed the writ petition. 4. We have perused the orders passed by the learned single Judge and the grounds of appeal and also heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. The fact remains that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis in Military Dairy Farm at Rajouri in the year 1994 and later on he was adjusted on casual basis when one Jaipal Singh was sent to another department. He was also issued with identity card. The said Jaipal Singh, who left the department, returned back and with a view to accommodate him, service of the respondent was discontinued. He was also issued with identity card. The said Jaipal Singh, who left the department, returned back and with a view to accommodate him, service of the respondent was discontinued. Though it is claimed that the respondent rendered four years service on casual basis prior to the appointment on daily wage basis in the year 1996, he was not given regular employment due to non-availability of post or cadre strength. 6. The learned single Judge considered the said issue and directed to reconsider the case of the respondent, if any vacancy arises and if there is no vacancy, then the respondent can be given the casual labour status, and the said direction being not a positive direction and only a simple direction to reconsider, it is upto the appellant to consider the said direction and pass appropriate orders. 7. In such a view of the matter, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and there is no merit in the writ appeal. Consequently this appeal stands dismissed. 8. No costs.