JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Instead of producing the requisite record, respondents have chosen to remain absent. 2. From the respective pleadings, the position as emerged is that the petitioner had been engaged as Casual Labourer on 07.03.1994 On completion of seven years of service, he had claimed the benefit of the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Daily Rated Workers/Work-charged Employees (Regularisation) Rules, 1994 notified vide SRO 64 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rules”). 3. Rules 4 and 5 of “The Rules”, for facility of reference, are quoted hereunder:- “4. Eligibility for Regularisation:- A daily rated worker/work charged employee shall be eligible for regularisation on fulfilment of the following conditions; namely:- a. that he is a permanent resident of the state; b. that on the date of his initial appointment his age was within the minimum and maximum age limit as prescribed for appointment in Government service; c. that he possesses the prescribed academic and/or technical qualification for the post against which he is required to be regularised: provide that in case of eligible daily rated workers to be regularised against class IV posts, relaxation of qualification and/or age shall be considered on merits by the concerned administrative department. d. that he is not retiree from any state or central Government service or any local body. Public sector undertaking or autonomous body in or outside the state; e. that his work and conduct has remained satisfactory during the period he worked as daily rated worker or work charged employee and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him; and f. that he has completed seven years continuous period of working as daily rated worker or work charged employee or partly as daily rated worker and partly as work charged employee. 5. Regularisation of daily rated workers: All the daily rated workers who on 31-3-1994, are eligible under rule 4 for regularisation shall with effect from 1-4-1994, be appointed on the regular pay scale of class IV category of posts in the scale of Rs. 750-940; Provided that if any of the categories have higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025, such employees shall be placed 2 years of service in the scale of Rs. 750-940. 4. The respondents instead of extending the benefit of said “Rules” to the petitioner, disengaged him vide order dated 31.03.2001 5. 750-940; Provided that if any of the categories have higher pay scale of Rs. 775-1025, such employees shall be placed 2 years of service in the scale of Rs. 750-940. 4. The respondents instead of extending the benefit of said “Rules” to the petitioner, disengaged him vide order dated 31.03.2001 5. Against the said order of disengagement, petitioner filed petition (SWP No. 698/2001), which has been disposed of on 24.07.2001 The operative portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petition is admitted to hearing and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service under the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994, provided he has completed seven years of service as Daily Rated Worker un-interruptedly and continuously and further provided that the evidence annexed with the petition with regard to his engagement as Daily Rated Worker and his un-interrupted continuation is borne by the record of the respondents. This consideration would be accorded by the respondents within four months.” 6. In compliance whereof, respondent (Director) has accorded consideration, which culminated into issue of order No. 414-DRD of 2001 dated 07.12.2001 where-under claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected. Dissatisfied therewith, instant petition has been filed. 7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner had been engaged as Casual Labourer on 07.03.1994, but he has been working uninterruptedly upto date of his disengagement i.e 31.03.2001, so had completed seven years of continuous service entitling him to get the benefits of “The Rules”. 8. Similarly circumstanced Casual Labourers have been extended the benefit of “The Rules”, but for unknown reasons, petitioner has been deprived of the same. Not only this, but in defiance to the interim direction of this Court dated 19.04.2002, his attendance has not been marked. It is further stated that inter-departmental communications placed on record clearly demonstrate the position of the petitioner having worked uninterruptedly but still same have been ignored, in the process, valuable rights of the petitioner have been jeopardised. The order, under challenge dated 07.12.2001, passed in compliance to the judgment dated 24.07.2001 rendered in SWP No. 698/2001 has been hoodwinked in a manner so as to negate the mandate of the judgment. 9. The order, under challenge dated 07.12.2001, passed in compliance to the judgment dated 24.07.2001 rendered in SWP No. 698/2001 has been hoodwinked in a manner so as to negate the mandate of the judgment. 9. Petitioner even though has worked under the style of ‘Casual Worker’ but in effect, has worked continuously, therefore, his engagement could not be termed as casual. Similar position has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.12.2012 rendered in a case titled ‘State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’ reported in 2012 (4) JKJ 1051 . 10. In the reply, as filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner was simply engaged as Casual Labourer that too after “The Rules” had come into force. In terms of Rule 7 of “The Rules”, the engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Daily Wagers was prohibited w.e.f the commencement of “The Rules”. In the reply, it has been stated that “The Rules” have come into force on 31.01.1994 whereas the petitioner had been engaged on 30.03.1994 Finally, it has been stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions as envisaged by “The Rules”, therefore, his case for regularisation has been rejected. 11. The first question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether the petitioner had been engaged as a Casual Labourer or a Daily Rated Worker. Admittedly, he has been engaged as a Casual Labourer. But in-effect as a daily rated worker; because he has been working uninterruptedly w.e.f the date of his engagement till the date of his disengagement in the year 2001. The position of Daily Rated Worker/Casual Worker has been taken note of in the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case titled ‘State of J&K v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sohail’ (supra). Paras 15, 16 & 17 of the said judgment are relevant to be quoted:- “15. Again another aspect regarding writ petitioners is that they are stated to have been engaged as casual labours. The question for consideration is as to whether they, in-effect, were casual labours or under the style of casual labourers, in effect, they were working as daily rated workers. Again another aspect regarding writ petitioners is that they are stated to have been engaged as casual labours. The question for consideration is as to whether they, in-effect, were casual labours or under the style of casual labourers, in effect, they were working as daily rated workers. Casual labour/Worker and Daily Rated Worker are defined under Section 2(b) and (f) of the Rules of 1994 which reads as under:- “(b) “Casual Labour/Worker” means a person who is engaged through an appointment order or otherwise on daily rated basis for rendering casual services to a Department. (f) “Daily Rated Worker” means a person engaged on daily wage basis at the rates sanctioned by the Government from time to time.” 16. The marking difference in between two clauses is that the engagement of the casual labour has to be occasional otherwise daily wages payable to the daily rated workers or the casual labours is the same but casual labour will get daily wages only for such period for which he shall be occasionally engaged whereas engagement of daily rated workers is not on occasional basis. 17. In the instant case writ petitioners styled to have been engaged as casual labours, in-effect, were daily rated workers because they were not engaged occasionally. They have been working continuously. Division Bench of this Court in the reported judgment, as referred above, at para 40 have dealt with the position of casual labours, same is reproduced herein-below:- “CASUAL EMPLOYEES; The cases of casual employees be also examined. In this regard, it would be apt to note the dictionary meaning of the word ‘casual’. In Black's Law Dicitionary, Sixth Edition, the meaning of word ‘casual’ has been defined as “occurring without regularity”, “occasional”, “impermanent” and “as employment for irregular periods”. A perusal of above meaning would indicate that where an employee has continued to work for sufficiently long period, then, it would not be apt to call him having been appointed on casual basis. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was considered in Piara Singh's case (supra). The relevant observations made in para 51 of the judgment stand already noticed above. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter was considered in Piara Singh's case (supra). The relevant observations made in para 51 of the judgment stand already noticed above. For facility of reference, the relevant observations made in this paragraphs are being quoted again:- “….If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation, while doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person….” 12. Applying the principle as has been laid down in the said judgment, the position of the petitioner is covered and can be safely said to have worked on Daily Rated basis and on completion of his seven years uninterrupted continuous service, was entitled to the benefits of “The Rules”. 13. The second point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner had been engaged after restriction in terms of Rule 7 of “The Rules”. Rule 7 reads as under:- “7. Restriction on engagement of daily rated workers/work charged employee:- 1. With effect from the commencement of these rules, on field/subordinate officer shall have the power for engagement of a daily rated worker or work charged employee in the department and the existing delegation, if any, in this regard is withdrawn; Provide that the competent authority may engage casual labour or seasonal labour in any of the departments to be specified by notification from time to time by the Government and such labour shall be on the muster roll for payment of wages and no engagement or appointment order shall be issued. 2. After the commencement of these rules the work charged posts shall be created only by the administrative departments in consultation with the finance and planning department.” 14. “The Rules” have come into force w.e.f 01.04.1994, petitioner had been engaged on 07.03.1994 prior to imposition of ban. In the reply, it has been wrongly recorded that “The Rules” had come into force on 31.01.1994. The position is clarified by Rule 2 of “The Rules” as notified vide SRO 64. 15. The position of the petitioner having been working continuously is clear from various inter departmental communications. In the reply, it has been wrongly recorded that “The Rules” had come into force on 31.01.1994. The position is clarified by Rule 2 of “The Rules” as notified vide SRO 64. 15. The position of the petitioner having been working continuously is clear from various inter departmental communications. (a) Vide communication dated 14.09.2001, Block Development Officer, Udhampur has conveyed to the Assistant Commissioner Development, Udhampur that the petitioner has completed seven years' of service as Casual Labourer. It is further mentioned that so far as the condition laid down in the Court judgment dated 24.07.2001, it is intimated that casual labour has completed seven years' service uninterruptedly and continuously with usual breaks. In addition thereto, statement of month-wise wages paid w.e.f March, 1994 to 31.01.2001 is also clear. The copy of the muster sheet also suggests payment of wages and some wages unpaid due to non availability of funds; (b) Another communication dated 19.09.2001 bearing No. Acdu/Estt/C-173/3880-81, Assistant Commissioner (Dev.) Udhampur, has conveyed to the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu, that the petitioner was engaged as Casual Labourer/Daily Rated Worker by the BDO Udhampur vide his endorsement No. 4066 dated 07.03.1994 He was actually paid w.e.f. 08.03.1994 as per the Muster-sheet. The said Casual Labourer was working uninterruptedly and continuously upto 31.03.2001 with usual breaks. Finally, it has also been conveyed that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation. He fulfils the required conditions as laid down in the Court directions dated 24.07.2001, then has recommended his regularisation in the light of the directions of the Court dated 24.07.2001; and (c) On 22.12.2001, representation of the petitioner has been forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner (Dev.), Udhampur to the Director, Rural Development, Jammu mentioning therein that, in fact, all the casual labourers engaged in the department who continued to work for seven years have been treated as Daily Rated Workers. Thereafter, many of them have been regularised as Helpers/Chowkidars and case of the petitioner is identical, as such, is recommended for regularisation in the light of the direction of the Court dated 24.07.2001 It is further mentioned that while submitting the case of the petitioner for regularisation, it was made clear that he has worked continuously and uninterruptedly for seven years as per the records. Therefore, taking holistic view and to give uniform treatment in all such cases, the applicant has to be considered for regularisation. 16. Therefore, taking holistic view and to give uniform treatment in all such cases, the applicant has to be considered for regularisation. 16. Despite all above recommendations, communications and the clarificatory position, Director Rural Development Jammu has passed the order impugned dated 07.12.2001 opining therein that the case of the petitioner was considered, but he having been engaged as Casual Labourer and not as daily wager/work charged labour, thus, is not covered under SRO 64. In addition thereto, petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for regularisation. 17. The order of consideration passed by the Director, Rural Development, Jammu, is totally in contravention to the judgment dated 24.07.2001 (supra). It appears that the respondent (Director) has not applied his mind. In fact, with pre-determined set of mind, he has rejected the case of the petitioner illegally. Such an order totally smacks application of mind and being untenable, is quashed. 18. Petitioner's position having been engaged prior to the imposition of ban is clear. He has been engaged on 07.03.1994, whereas in terms of Rule 7 of “The Rules” restriction on engagement of Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Labour was to operate from the date of commencement of “The Rules” i.e 01.04.1994, therefore, the assertion of the Director that he had been engaged after the imposition of ban is against the records. 19. Communications, as referred to hereinabove, clearly suggest that the petitioner has been working uninterruptedly and continuously in the respondents' department right from 07.03.1994 till the date of disengagement i.e 31.03.2001 means he had completed requisite seven years as daily wager though styled to be casual worker. He has worked as daily rated worker. So his position is covered by “The Rules”, further more is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court as referred to above and also by the other judgment dated 25.02.2015 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in batch of Letters Patent Appeals with the lead case ‘State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Niaz Ahmed’ LPASW No. 115/2002. 20. Another situation which emerges for determination is as to whether the petitioner is continuing in service from the date of his disengagement or not. In this connection, it has been specifically asserted that while admitting this petition to hearing on 19.04.2002, direction was issued to the respondents that they shall permit the petitioner to continue as Daily Wager provided he is working on that date. In this connection, it has been specifically asserted that while admitting this petition to hearing on 19.04.2002, direction was issued to the respondents that they shall permit the petitioner to continue as Daily Wager provided he is working on that date. Though the respondents have taken a categoric stand that he has not been working continuously after the date of disengagement i.e 31.03.2001, but communication addressed by the Block Development Officer, Udhampur to Assistant Commissioner (Dev.) Udhampur is clearly suggestive of the fact that as per the records i.e Muster-sheet, petitioner was on duty on 19.04.2002 but the wages have not been paid to him due to termination order passed by the Director, Rural Development, Jammu. 21. Summing up, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (a) That the petitioner has completed the requisite seven years' continuous service in-effect as a Daily Wager being entitled to regularisation, therefore, his case for regularisation be finalised within four weeks. (b) Position of the petitioner, as to whether, he has been actually performing duties from the date of his disengagement i.e 31.03.2001 shall be worked out. In case, he has been working then whatever wages due to him shall be paid to him and in case it is found that he was not discharging the duty effectively in view of the disengagement order, then for that period, 25% of wages shall be considered to be paid to him. (c) Rule is required to be framed against then Director, Rural Development, Jammu for having violated the judgment dated 24.07.2001, but taking a lenient view, same is deferred but in case of any further default, framing of Rule will be indispensable. 22. Petition succeeds shall stand disposed of on afore said terms.