JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Petitioner has been clamouring for redressal of his grievances. Despite recommendations and communications followed by the directions passed by this Court while disposing of SWP No. 434/2011, the right of regularization has been denied by the respondent authorities on the basis and the reasons as recorded in the impugned Government Order No. 504 of 2014, dated 29.10.2014. In essence petitioner claims the benefit under Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules, 1994 as has been notified vide SRO 64, dated 24.03.1994. 2. Rule 2 of the said Rules has been quoted in the order impugned so as to show that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'Daily Rated Worker' so is not eligible for regularization. 3. Daily Rated Worker in Rule 2 has been defined as under:- "Daily Rated Worker means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time." 4. The conditions to be satisfied for regularization include:- (a) a person must have been engaged on daily rate basis, (b) a person must have satisfactorily completed seven years continuous period of work. 5. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 had taken up the matter with respondent No. 2 (Finance Department) but the said Department has conveyed to them that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization in terms of SRO 64 of 1994, for having been engaged on consolidated basis. 6. The only question for determination is as to whether the petitioner was engaged on consolidated basis or on daily rate basis. 7. The relevant part of the initial order of engagement of the petitioner bearing No. 756 of 1990, dated 25.08.1990, copy of which has been placed on records, is quoted hereinunder:- "Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad Malik S/o Habib Malik R/o Bonakota Bandipora is hereby enrolled as Cook on D/Wager Pay of Rs. 300/- per month in P/S Sumbal with effect from 11.06.90. No allowance is entitled to this cadre." 8. This position is not denied by the respondents as in Para 2 of the reply same is admitted so admittedly petitioner has been engaged as daily wager. 9. As per the said order petitioner was engaged on a pay of Rs. 300/- per month in P/S Sumbal with effect from 11.06.90. No allowance is entitled to this cadre." 8. This position is not denied by the respondents as in Para 2 of the reply same is admitted so admittedly petitioner has been engaged as daily wager. 9. As per the said order petitioner was engaged on a pay of Rs. 300 per month; whether same will be treated as engagement on consolidated basis, answer has to be in negative because subsequently the position of the petitioner has been clarified i.e. his position of having been engaged as daily rated worker has been reaffirmed by:- (a) communications dated 02.01.2003, addressed by Chief Accounts Officer, PHQ, J&K, Jammu to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, District Baramulla, Kashmir, communication dated 23.08.2010, addressed by SSP, Bandipora to the Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bandipora. (b) Another communication dated 15.09.2008, addressed by SP, Bandipora to the SSP District Baramulla, where-under it is qualified that the petitioner has been engaged in district Baramulla since long @ Rs. 2100/- per month. His wages are being drawn from DPO Baramulla till date. (c) Then again vide Order No. 288 of 2010, dated 11.08.2010, Superintendent of Police, Bandipora has sanctioned enhancement of monthly wages from Rs. 2100/- to Rs. 3300/- viz. Rs. 110/- per day in respect of the petitioner. (d) The position is further strengthened by the fact that the Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu vide his communication dated 17.12.2004, addressed to the Financial Commissioner, Home Department, J&K, Jammu, has requested him for convening meeting of Empowered Committee for regularization of the daily rated workers, which include the petitioner. (e) Again SSP, Bandipora vide communication dated 06.12.2014 has submitted the wages drawl statements w.e.f. 8/1990 to 09/2009 and w.e.f. 10/2009 to 10/2014 along-with continuity certificate, same has been placed on record as shown to have been issued by the SSP, Baramulla, wherein it is clearly reflected that from the date of engagement i.e. 25.08.1990 till October 2014, petitioner has been paid the wages at the rate as were prevalent and payable to the daily wagers from time to time. 10. The petitioner has been treated to have been engaged on consolidated basis when the same is totally negated by the records as are available. 10. The petitioner has been treated to have been engaged on consolidated basis when the same is totally negated by the records as are available. When the records are clear, it could not be said by the Finance Department that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization as having been engaged on consolidate basis. It appears that they have gone by the 'word' as recorded in the initial engagement order of the petitioner "Pay of Rs. 300 per month" but when we go to the contents of the said order, for all practical purposes the petitioner has been engaged as daily wager. Why same has been ignored by the Finance Department has remained to be explained. If there is any error or any fault on the part of the respondent authorities in not recording daily wage amount instead has recorded Rs. 300/-, same could not be termed as engagement on consolidated basis when subsequently as per the wages detail as have been drawn from the Treasury and paid to the petitioner right from 25th August 1990, clearly indicates that the petitioner has been paid in the capacity of Daily Rated Worker as per the rates prevalent from time to time. 11. Respondent authorities while according consideration to the case of the petitioner have totally in arbitrary manner hoodwinked the issue so as to negate the benefit of the Rules as was and is available to the petitioner. 12. In the earlier disposed of petition SWP No. 434/2011, it was specifically recorded as under:- ".......The policy of State being liberal in relaxing the conditions for regularization of similarly situated Daily Rated Workers, the objection raised by the State that the petitioner engaged as Cook on temporary basis does not qualify for regularization does not hold good...." 13. It is quite deplorable that the respondent authorities have unnecessarily dragged the petitioner into the endless litigation and subjected him to mental agony; after all petitioner had been validly engaged as daily rated worker and has been paid wages right from the beginning as per the prevalent rates; now to say that his engagement was on consolidated basis is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. 14. The petitioner is held to have been engaged as daily rated worker as having been paid wages as per prevalent rates from time to time. 15. 14. The petitioner is held to have been engaged as daily rated worker as having been paid wages as per prevalent rates from time to time. 15. The opinion of Finance Department or other respondent that the petitioner has been engaged on consolidated basis is totally illegal, unwarranted and shall be ignored. 16. The position of the petitioner falls within the ambit of definition of 'Daily Rated Worker' as defined in Rule 2 of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees (Regularization) Rules 1994. The order impugned denying the benefit of regularization to the petitioner, as such, is quashed. Respondent authorities at their respective levels shall simultaneously initiate and take all necessary steps so as to ensure regularization of services of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. 17. Petition allowed with costs which are quantified as Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) only, to be paid to the petitioner by the Finance Department, which is mainly responsible for having dragged the petitioner by raising unnecessary and unfounded objections. Disposed of as above along-with all connected CMPs.