JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Petitioners seek regularization of service besides benefits consequent thereto with effect from the date of completion of seven years service as Daily Wagers. Earlier, SWP No. 2102/2001 filed by the petitioners was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2005. Operative part of the same is reproduced hereunder: 'Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation of their services as it is made out that the petitioners were engaged as daily rated workers prior to 1994 and have been continuously working as daily rated workers. Consideration shall be accorded with four months.' 2. That when needful in terms of aforementioned orders was not done, COA(SW) No. 154/2006 was filed by the petitioners. The same was disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2008 by holding that in view of order dated 29.04.2008 passed by the respondents, no further action was called for. Accordingly, contempt petition was disposed of as settled and rule if any issued was discharged. However, while taking note of the plea that the respondents had not passed any order for grant of back wages in favour of the petitioners, it was observed that no direction was given to the respondents for consideration of the petitioners claim for release of back wages and in case the petitioners had any grievance in respect thereto, they could file a fresh petition. 3. That as per averments in the writ petition, petitioners were working against clear vacancies prior to the engagement of one Raj Kumar in 1998 who came to be regularized pursuant to the orders of this Court with immediate effect vide order dated 01.04.1996. Reference has also been given of one Baj Singh and others who were regularized vide order Annexure-D dated 04.08.2001 with effect from date of completion of seven years of service in terms of order of this Court in SWP No. 801/1998 in case titled as Baj Singh & Ors. v. State & Ors. 4. Petitioners grievance is that order, Annexure-B dated 29.04.2008, regularizing the services of the petitioners with immediate effect deprived them from getting pension on account of their non-fulfilling requirement of qualifying service on account of non-regularisation of their service w.e.f. the date of completion of seven years of service. v. State & Ors. 4. Petitioners grievance is that order, Annexure-B dated 29.04.2008, regularizing the services of the petitioners with immediate effect deprived them from getting pension on account of their non-fulfilling requirement of qualifying service on account of non-regularisation of their service w.e.f. the date of completion of seven years of service. Plea has also been taken of regularization of one Raj Kumar allowed vide Annexure-C dated 29.11.1997 with effect from 01.04.1996 without taking into consideration the prior appointment/engagement of the petitioners. 5. That in the light of the aforementioned position, it has been argued that not regularizing the petitioners with effect from the date of their completing seven years of service amounted to violation of their fundamental, legal and statutory rights. 6. That in the objections filed by the official respondents, it has been contended by way of preliminary objections that SRO 64 of 1994 merely conferred eligibility for regularization of Daily Wagers/Work Charge Employees on completion of seven years of continuous engagement and cases of such persons were to be considered by a committee established in respect thereto where after posts were to be created against which the Daily Wagers were to be regularized. On the basis of the same, it has been urged that no legal, fundamental or statutory right of the petitioners was violated so as to entitle them to claim relief as prayed for and the issue stood settled by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court. 7. That, during the pendency of the writ petition, an application was filed for impleading Mohan Lal, Stephan Masih as also Raj Kumar. While issuing notice on the application on 21.11.2011, the same was directed to be listed along with the main petition immediately after service. Thereafter, on 03.02.2014 while noticing that proposed respondent No. 3/Raj Kumar had died, application for deleting said proposed respondent from the array of respondents was allowed. 8. That details of engagement of the petitioners as per the official respondents is as under:- 'Petitioner No. 1 was engaged as Daily Rated Worker vide order dated 31.01.1991 in Municipal Committee, Khour i.e. erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Khour and was regularized vide order dated 29.04.2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 and was subsequently place in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 vide order dated 19.09.2011. 2550-3200 and was subsequently place in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 vide order dated 19.09.2011. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Safai Karmchari on consolidated basis vide order dated 07.10.1991 in Notified Area Committee, Jourian now Municipal Committee, Jourian. He was regularized as Safai Karmchari vide order dated 29.04.2008. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed on consolidated basis in erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Jourian vide order dated 04.11.1986 and was regularized as Safai Karmchari vide order dated 29.04.2008. All the petitioners were regularized in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in SWP No. 2102/2001, dated 13.12.2005. 9. That as regards the plea of discrimination it has been stated that Stephan Masih was appointed/engaged as Safai Karmchari on consolidated basis on 01.08.1991 and was regularized as Safai Karmchari vide order dated 04.08.2001 with effect from 01.04.1999 after creation of a post. Likewise, Raj Kumar was engaged in Notified Area Committed, Khour as Mashki on consolidated basis vide order dated 01.09.1988 and was regularized vide order dated 29.11.1997 with effect from 01.04.1996 against the post created by the Government. Similarly, Gian Chand and Kuldeep Raj were appointed as Mashki in Notified Area Committee, Jourian on consolidated basis on 27.10.1986 and after some time in place of Kuldeep Raj, one Mohan Lal was appointed as Mashki on 05.11.1993 and both Gian Chand and Mohan were regularized in compliance of the judgment passed in SWP No. 2090/2001 vide order dated 15.07.2004. It has further been submitted that Notified Area Committees/Municipal Councils of different areas are separate entities and no claim can be projected inter se employees belonging to different Committees/Councils and that regularization of Daily Wagers is not automatic on completion of seven years service and has to be made after considering cases in terms of eligibility and creation of posts in this regard. The petitioners were not engaged against any sanctioned post and they could not make grievance of regularization of other employees done in compliance of directions of the High Court. 10. That the allegation that one Mohan Lal was regularized against the post which had been created for regularization of the petitioners has been denied as factually incorrect. However, it is admitted that Mohan Lal was engaged on 05.09.1993 and was regularized on 11.05.2005. 11. 10. That the allegation that one Mohan Lal was regularized against the post which had been created for regularization of the petitioners has been denied as factually incorrect. However, it is admitted that Mohan Lal was engaged on 05.09.1993 and was regularized on 11.05.2005. 11. That at this stage, it would be relevant to notice that Baj Singh, Kalyan Bibi, Babu Masih, Thoru Masih, Tiloo Masih, Suleman Bibi and Stephan Masih who are stated to have been regularized on completion of seven years of service from date of engagement vide order Annexure-D were engaged on 21.02.1987, 03.02.1987, 01.03.1986, 01.03.1986, 01.03.1986, 18.08.1987 and 01.08.1991 respectively whereas they were regularised on creation of posts vide order dated 23.07.2001 w.e.f. 01.04.1995, 01.04.1995, 01.04.1995, 01.04.1995, 01.04.1995, 01.04.199(sic) and 01.04.1999 respectively. Relevant extract of the order of regularization of Baj Singh and six others including Stephan Masih is reproduced hereunder:- 'Whereas, now the Government has issued an order bearing No. 174-HUM of 2001, dated 23.07.2001 by virtue of which sanction to the creation of 7 (seven) posts have been accorded temporarily in the pay scale of 2550-3200 (six w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and one from w.e.f. 01.04.1999) with further directions to the Director Local Bodies, Jammu for issuing formal order of their regularisation against the above mentioned created posts.' 12. That Raj Kumar appointed in 1988 on consolidated wages was regularized vide order Annexure-G dated 29.11.1997 w.e.f. 01.04.1996. Likewise, Gian Chand and Mohan Lal were appointed/engaged as Mashki on consolidated basis on 27.10.1986 and 05.09.1993 but were regularized vide order 15.07.2004 in compliance to the judgment of this Court in SWP No. 2090/2001. It has also been submitted that different Notified Area Committees/Municipal Councils are separate entities and no claim can be projected inter se employees belonging to different Committees/Councils besides regularization of Daily Wagers is not automatic on completion of seven years service and has to be done after considering the cases of the employees concerned in terms of eligibility as also creation of posts, the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts, therefore could not make a grievance for regularization at par with persons who were regularised in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Plea that one Mohan Lal was regularized against the post created for regularization of the petitioners was denied as being factually incorrect. Plea that one Mohan Lal was regularized against the post created for regularization of the petitioners was denied as being factually incorrect. That in the light of the aforementioned background, prayer is for dismissal of the writ petition in the light of decision of this Court dated 01.09.2008 in SWP No. 941/2005 in case titled as Kishore Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors. Grievance in the aforementioned petition was that although services of the petitioners had been regularized with effect from 07.07.2004 pursuant to the orders of this Court, benefit of regularization was not given to them retrospectively w.e.f. the date they had completed seven years of service as Daily Rated Workers/Work Charged Employees despite the fact that similarly situated persons had been granted the said relief with retrospective effect from the date of completion of seven years of service. The learned Writ Court took into account relevant provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 which deal with regularization of Daily Rated Worker/Work Charged Employees. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced hereunder:- Rule 3 of the said SRO deals with the creation of posts. The said provision reads as under:- '3. Creation of the posts: 1. Committee may from time to time on receipt of proposal from any administrative department approve the creation of posts for the purpose of regularization of daily rated workers or work charged employees. 2. After the approval under sub-rule (1) above is conveyed to the administrative department, the administrative department concerned shall issue the orders of creation of the posts. The posts so created shall be:- a. Both on the plan or non-plan establishment as the classification of the scheme or work may be on which such eligible person are deployed, and b. In conformity with the existing sanctioned designation in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940.' Rule 4 deals with the eligibility for regularization of daily rated worker/work charged employee. The relevant provision i.e. Rule 4(f) may be noticed as under:- 4. Eligibility for regularization:- (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.' 17. That in the light of the aforementioned provisions, learned Writ Court held that regularization could be ordered only in the eventuality of availability of posts apart from employee concerned fulfilling the other eligibility conditions under rules. That in the light of the aforementioned provisions, learned Writ Court held that regularization could be ordered only in the eventuality of availability of posts apart from employee concerned fulfilling the other eligibility conditions under rules. Learned Writ Court while coming to the aforementioned conclusion relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as 2004 (II) SLJ 612 in case titled as 2005 (4) JKJ 328 [HC] State of J&K & Ors. v. Maharaj Krishan Bhat & Ors. Paragraph No. 17 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "As seen above, rule 5 of the rules contemplates "appointment on regular pay scale." Such appointment can be made only against a post. If there are no posts available, sanctioned/created by the competent authority, there cannot be any appointment. It is one thing to give notional benefit, such as in the matter of seniority, it is another thing to make appointment beyond budgetary provision. In absence of any budgetary provisions, neither any appointment can be made on a 'post' nor salary/pay etc. can be paid to the appointment........." So far as regularization of services of a daily rated worker/work charged employee after completion of seven years of service is concerned, the Division Bench in the aforesaid case further observed as under:- "...........It is to be kept in mind that completion of seven years continuous period of working as daily rated worker or work charged employee is one of the conditions of eligibility under clause (f) of rule 4, like other conditions enumerated in other clauses which does not mean that all those who possessed or possess the eligibility are to be regularize i.e. appointed in the regular pay scale, irrespective of the availability of posts or not..." 18. That in this case, Raj Kumar who was working in Notified Area Committed, Khour as Mashki was engaged on consolidated basis vide order dated 01.09.1988 i.e. prior to petitioner No. 1 who was engaged as Daily Rated Worker vide order dated 31.01.1991 in Municipal Committee, Khour. Petitioner No. 2 & 3 were appointed as Safai Karmchari on consolidated basis vide order dt. 07.10.1991 & 04.11.1986 respectively in Notified Area Committee, Jourian now Municipal Committee, Jourian i.e. earlier than one Mohan Lal who was appointed as Mashki on 05.11.1993 in place of Kuldeep Raj who was appointed as Mashki in Notified Area Committee, Jourian on consolidated basis on 27.10.1986. 07.10.1991 & 04.11.1986 respectively in Notified Area Committee, Jourian now Municipal Committee, Jourian i.e. earlier than one Mohan Lal who was appointed as Mashki on 05.11.1993 in place of Kuldeep Raj who was appointed as Mashki in Notified Area Committee, Jourian on consolidated basis on 27.10.1986. Said Mohan Lal was regularized in compliance of judgment passed in SWP No. 2090/2001 vide order dated 15.07.2004. However, petitioner No. 2 & 3 were regularized as Safai Karmchari's vide order dated 29.04.2008. Thus as regards petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 they were regularised on a date later than Mohan Lal who despite being similarly situated as the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 was appointed later than the petitioners in Municipal Committee Jourian. No doubt the aforementioned persons were regularised pursuant to Court orders but the same was done pursuant to creation of posts. In the circumstances, the claim is that it is not open to the official respondents to discriminate by regularising a subsequently appointed person earlier by creating posts while denying the said benefit to others appointed earlier. In the light of the position as noted above petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled to be considered for regularisation of service w.e.f. the date Mohan Lal appointed later than them was made regular. Accordingly, while dismissing the claim of the petitioners for regularisation on completion of 7 years of service, the official respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 for regularisation w.e.f. the date Mohan Lal similarly situated employee appointed later than petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 was regularised. Likewise claim of petitioner No. 1 be also considered for regularisation by considering whether any similarly situated employee appointed later than petitioner No. 1 has been regularised prior to the petitioner. The same be done in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months of submission of certified copy of the order of this Court.