JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J.:- 1. The petitioner earlier approached this Court through the medium of writ petition (SWP No. 2085/2002) seeking his regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 on the ground that he had been in service of respondents as daily rated worker since 07.03.1994, as such, was entitled to be regularized on completion of continued service of seven years. SWP No. 2085/2002 (earlier writ petition) came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2012 in which direction was issued to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's regularization having regard to the mandate of SRO 64 of 1994. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the matter was considered by respondent No. 2 who vide communication dated 30.04.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. It is this order, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 2. The order impugned has been assailed by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds:- (a) That the petitioner was engaged as daily rated worker in March, 1994 prior to the cut of date, i.e. 01.04.1994 mentioned in SRO 64 of 1994, as such, on completion of 7 years continued service, the petitioner became entitled to the benefit of regularization; (b) That the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by SRO 64 of 1994 and while rejecting his case, respondent No. 2 has not given any justified reasons; (c) That father of the petitioner had given a piece of land free of costs for construction of quarters and Mulberry Nursery in the year 1983 and was promised that one of his family members would be engaged against the post of Class IV in the Department. 3. In support of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 954/2007 titled Kasturi Lal v. State and others decided on 28.10.2011 2011 (4) JKJ 166 [HC]. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in LPASW No. 33/2010 titled State of J & K and others v. Mustaq Ahmad Sohail and others. 4. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in LPASW No. 33/2010 titled State of J & K and others v. Mustaq Ahmad Sohail and others. 4. The respondents have filed objections and have by and large supported the impugned order on the same grounds as are contained in the order impugned and resisted the petition on the ground that petitioner was no doubt engaged as casual worker on 05.03.1994, but he actually joined in June 1994. That the petitioner was only casual worker and not daily wager as term is defined under SRO 64 of 1994. Further plea of respondents is that petitioner who remained in service with the department till 30.06.2002 had left the services long back and is now out of service for the last 11 years, as such, his claim under SRO 64 of 1994 is not maintainable. 5. The respondents have also pointed out in their objections that in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, person claiming regularization has to show that he/she is in continued service as daily rated worker for a period of seven years and in case of the petitioner, there is break in service after 59 days, as such, his service cannot be said to be in continued service entitling him to regularization under the aforesaid SRO. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner came to be engaged as daily wager pursuant to communication dated 05.03.1994 issued by Additional Project Director, National Sericulture Project, Jammu. The petitioner claims to have joined his service on 07.03.1994. There is nothing contrary brought on record by the respondents to show that petitioner actually joined the services after 01.04.1994, to be precised in June, 1994 as claimed by respondents in their objections. 8. Going by the date of engagement of the petitioner, the petitioner has completed continued service of seven years on 06.03.2001, therefore, has become entitled to regularization under SRO 64 of 1994. The break of one or two days in between the spells of 59 days for which the petitioner was engaged from time to time is of no consequence and it cannot deprive him of his status of daily rated worker having performed his duties continuously for a period of seven years. The break of one or two days in between the spells of 59 days for which the petitioner was engaged from time to time is of no consequence and it cannot deprive him of his status of daily rated worker having performed his duties continuously for a period of seven years. The objection of respondents that the petitioner was only a casual worker and not a daily rated worker, as such, is not entitled to regularization, is also not tenable in law, for the reasons, that person who has been working for the last more than seven years cannot be termed to be a casual labourer. 9. Position in this regard is already well settled in couple of judicial pronouncements made by this Court. The case of the petitioner is well covered by the Judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA (SW) No. 166/2011 titled State v. Amar Singh, in which terms 'casual labourer' and 'daily rated worker' have been explained in extenso. Referring to earlier judgment of this Court delivered in Ashok Kumar v. State of J&E and others reported in 2003 (II) SLJ 475 : 2003 (4) JKJ 93 [HC], this Court has already held that any casual labourer, who has continued for a fairly long spell, a presumption would arise that there was a regular need for his services and in such a situation, a person cannot be deprived of right of regularization, which he has earned by serving the Department for more than seven years on the plea that he was only a casual labour and not a daily rated worker entitled to be regularized in terms of SRO 64 of 1994. Thus, the objection of the respondents that since the petitioner was a casual labourer and not a daily rated worker, as such, cannot be regularized, cannot be accepted, and also the stand of the respondents that petitioner had left his service and was not working in Department since 2002, as such, cannot be regularized, too cannot be accepted, for the reasons, that the petitioner had completed statutory period of continued service of seven years in the year 2001 itself, as such, right had accrued to him to be regularized in service. Since services of the petitioner were not regularized as per the mandate of SRO 64 of 1994, he might have abandoned his job as daily rated worker in pursuing the remedy available to him in law. 10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the right of regularization accrued to the petitioner in the year 2001 itself when he completed service as daily rated worker, as such, regularization cannot be denied to him on the aforesaid backgrounds. The direction has come from this Court earlier also, and it was a clear direction to consider his case in accordance with mandate of SRO 64 of 1994. However, the respondents have failed in their duties to accord due consideration to the regularization of the case of the petitioner in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 rather vide order impugned herein his claim was wrongly rejected. Therefore, the order impugned cannot sustain and is, accordingly, quashed. Consequently, the State respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner in the Department in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order notwithstanding the fact that petitioner is not in service of the respondents and regularization of the petitioner would, however, be prospective. Order accordingly. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA(s).