JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed praying for directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and not to terminate/ disengage them and to release the salary with effect from February, 2001. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Daily rated workers before January, 1994 and continued serving the respondents. It is contended by the petitioners that Government has issued Order in Government Order No. 144-GAD of 2001, dated 02.02.2001 whereby it was ordered that all the daily rated workers who have been appointed after imposition of ban, i.e. 31.01.1994 and are still performing their duties should be paid their wages up to 31.12.2000 and thereafter their services should be disengaged. The petitioners, apprehending their disengagement, filed the writ petition and this Court by order dated 27.08.2001 directed the respondents to maintain status quo. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that petitioners came to be engaged with effect from 01.04.1994 much after coming into force of SRO 64 of 1994, which placed an embargo on the engagement of Daily wagers/ Daily Rated workers as suck the engagement of the petitioner having been made in violation of the Rules, the petitioners were disengaged w.e.f. 05.02.2001 as they were not entitled to be continued in service and regularized. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that by Government Order No. 1285 issued pursuant to Cabinet decision No. 135/11 (B) dated 10.09.2001 the cut off date was extended to 06.11.2001, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be continued in service and regularized in terms of the Rules. Learned counsel heavily relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 SLJ 73 : 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC] (State of J&K and Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail and Ors.). 5. The issue regarding engagement and regularization of Daily Rated Workers/ Daily Wagers was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 2013 SLJ 73 : 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC] (State of J&K & Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors.). In n paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgment, it has been held thus- "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. v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail & Ors.). In n paragraph 13 and 14 of the said judgment, it has been held thus- "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 SLJ 475 : 2003 (4) JKJ 93 [HC]. 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 6.11.2001 in terms of Govt. Order No. 1285-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 of 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 regularized in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-charged Employees(Regularization) Rules, 1994." 6. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) which was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioners if they are not in service as on date and allow them to complete seven years service by counting the service already rendered by them if they have not completed their seven years of service till the date of their discontinuation i.e. 05.02.2001, and thereafter regularize their services in terms of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 2013 SLJ 73 : 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 [HC] within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. No costs. Petition allowed