JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the official respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date respondents 6 to 8 came to be regularized, or, with effect from the date respondents 4 & 5 came to be regularized vide Order No. PDC/CJ/44 of 2010 dated 16.01.2010. Petitioners are also seeking a direction to the official respondents to enhance their salary retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 14.09.2005. The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that initially petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 were appointed on casual basis as Helpers and Junior Engineers on monthly emoluments of Rs. 1800/- and Rs. 3500/- respectively in the J&K State Power Development Corporation with effect from 02.08.2002, thereafter their services were converted into contractual basis with effect from 01.04.2005 on monthly emoluments of Rs. 4500/- in case of Shift Engineers/Jr. Engineers and Rs. 1800/- in case of petitioners herein. It is averred that respondents 4 & 5 were also appointed on contractual basis in the Power Development Department on 05.05.2005 vide Government Order No. 149-PDD of 2005 dated 27.04.2005, who were later on sent to State Power Development Corporation on deputation basis. 2. It is averred that services of petitioners and private respondents came to be extended from time to time. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.08.2009, monthly emoluments of petitioners were enhanced from Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 2500/-. Further, it is averred that the Government issued Notification dated 31.08.2009 under SRO 266, whereby amendments were made in the J&K Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, notifying grade pay in favour of various categories of employees, which also covered the pay band in which the petitioners were working. With a view to examine the cases of adhoc/contractual/consolidated employees in various Government Departments by the Empowered Committee, all the administrative departments vide order dated 14.10.2009 were asked to furnish the list of all such employees. With a view to examine the cases of adhoc/contractual/consolidated employees in various Government Departments by the Empowered Committee, all the administrative departments vide order dated 14.10.2009 were asked to furnish the list of all such employees. However, it was made clear that the persons working in academic arrangement, for a fixed term or against tenure post with the life of the project, non-governmental agencies or autonomous bodies or public sector undertaking or Corporations or Government Companies or Societies or other local authorities, which have their own rules and regulations, governing their functioning or part time or seasonal workers, including those, whose wages are paid from the local funds, or contingent grants, were not to be covered under this Government order. 3. It is averred that since the State Power Development Corporation, the employer of petitioners, did not have its own rules and regulations and it followed the rules and regulations of Power Development Department framed by the Government, therefore, its employees, including the petitioners were covered under order dated 14.10.2009. It is averred that although in terms of said order, the Power Development Corporation was to furnish the list of all such employees including that of petitioners, but initially it failed to refer the names of petitioners to the Member Secretary of the Empowered Committee for regularization of their services, however, later on respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 11.12.2009 sent the particulars of petitioners as well as private respondents for further necessary action. 4. It is averred that vide Order No. PDC/CJ/144 of 2010 dated 16.01.2010 sanction was accorded to the regular appointment of respondents 4 to 8 in the pay scale of 4500-7000 (pre-revised), thereby giving the benefit of Order No. 1423-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009, whereas the services of petitioners have not been regularized, although they too had been working without any interruption ever since they were appointed in the year 2002. It is averred that respondents 6 to 8 were appointed along with petitioners in the year 2002 on contractual basis and were drawing consolidated salary, whereas respondents 4 & 5 were appointed in the year 2005. 5. It is averred that respondents 6 to 8 were appointed along with petitioners in the year 2002 on contractual basis and were drawing consolidated salary, whereas respondents 4 & 5 were appointed in the year 2005. 5. Further, it is averred that Government Order No. 1661-GAD of 2009 dated 26.11.2009 provides that contractual employees appointed under J&K Contractual Appointment Rules, 2003, sanctioned vide SRO 255 of 2003 dated 05.08.2003, and continuing in service on or after 01.01.2006, would be paid salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay band plus applicable grade pay of the post to which the employee belonged. It is averred that since the petitioners have also been working on contractual basis without any break from the year 2002 and getting consolidated salary, they are also entitled to the benefit of order dated 26.11.2009, thus required to be paid salary equivalent to the minimum of the pay band plus applicable grade pay of the post to which they belonged. Further, it is averred that although the Administrative Officer, State Power Development Corporation vide Communication No. PDC/E-146/C/CJ/2504 dated 31.12.2009 gave approval to the proposal of treating Junior Engineers appointed on contractual basis in Power Development Corporation at par with Junior Engineers appointed under SRO 255 for the purpose of emoluments only, however, in respect of petitioners, who were also appointed on the same date as respondents 6 to 8, no such proposal was approved, thus different yard sticks have been used in respect of petitioners vis-a-vis proforma respondents in the matter of application of SRO 255 for the purpose of emoluments only. Further, it is averred that not only this, sanction was also accorded to the enhancement of wages in favour of contractual/consolidated Computer Operators from Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7100/- per month vide Order No. PDC/CJ/27 dated 15.01.2010. 6. It is averred that the petitioners made a representation to respondent No. 2, who, while recommending their case for enhancement of emoluments, forwarded the same to Corporate Office along with recommendations of respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners made another representation, but all in vain. It is averred that since the official respondents have failed to regularize their services with effect from the date respondents 6 to 8 have been regularized and also did not enhance their emoluments, hence, the present writ petition. 7. Thereafter, the petitioners made another representation, but all in vain. It is averred that since the official respondents have failed to regularize their services with effect from the date respondents 6 to 8 have been regularized and also did not enhance their emoluments, hence, the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the petitioners have been working against clear vacancies as Helpers on contractual basis since 2002 without any break and have already completed seven years of service without any interruption; therefore, their services are required to be regularized as has been done in the case of respondents 4 to 8. He further contended that though respondents 4 & 5 came to be appointed in the Power Development Department three years after the appointment of petitioners in State Power Development Corporation, yet their services have been regularized, but in case of petitioners nothing concrete has been done. 8. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 averring therein that the petitioners have no right to claim regularization on the ground that their engagement was not substantive in nature, rather the same was purely on need basis for a particular period of time. Further, it is averred that the Power Development Corporation has no statutory rules of its own and has been following the rules of the Government. It is averred that the services of petitioners were hired in August 2002 on consolidated monthly emoluments of Rs. 1800/-. Further, it is averred that in view of continued requirement of manpower for the operation and maintenance of the Grid Station, Receiving Station and 11KV outgoing feeders for providing satisfactorily power supply to various construction sites for BHEP, subsequent extensions were granted to the engagement of petitioners from time to time and latest was vide order dated 26.08.2010. It is averred that completion of seven years service would not automatically give any right in favour of petitioners to seek regularization until and unless there are vacancies, as such the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 are not applicable in case of petitioners. It is averred that completion of seven years service would not automatically give any right in favour of petitioners to seek regularization until and unless there are vacancies, as such the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994 are not applicable in case of petitioners. Further, it is averred that in view of commendable performance of five contractual Junior Engineers of Baglihar HEP including three Junior Engineers engaged by JKSPDC vide order dated 06.08.2004, their services were regularized vide order dated 16.01.2010, as they have been running the Baglihar Power House since its commissioning in absence of regular staff and have gained enough experience and skill in running the Power Project. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 10. Admittedly, the official respondents have not denied the engagement of petitioners in the State Power Development Corporation right from August 2002; even they have also admitted that the petitioners were being given extensions from time to time without any break and the latest was vide order dated 26.08.2010 for a further period of six months. The petitioners filed the present petition on 15.10.2010 and this Court vide order dated 18.10.2010 directed that the present status of petitioners shall not be disturbed. And, today is 04.05.2017; meaning thereby the petitioners have been working on the roll of State Power Development Corporation right from August 2002 to till date, i.e., for the last about fifteen years without any break. 11. Now, the only main ground taken by the official respondents in denying the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services is that they were not engaged as Helpers on contractual basis, rather were engaged purely on need basis for a particular period of time, therefore, they have no right to claim regularization of their services. 12. A perusal of Annexure "A" at page 21, annexed with the writ petition, reveals that the Committee consisting of Financial Commissioner, Commissioner/Secretary, PDD and Managing Director, JKSPDC recommended, amongst others, continuation of petitioners as well as private respondents on contractual basis on consolidated monthly emoluments in the State Power Development Corporation. Further, vide order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure "B") approval was accorded to the continuation of petitioners as well as private respondents on contractual basis on consolidated monthly emoluments. 13. Further, vide order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure "B") approval was accorded to the continuation of petitioners as well as private respondents on contractual basis on consolidated monthly emoluments. 13. Further, Annexure "J" to the writ petition, signed by Executive Engineer, Electric Project Division, Chanderkote reveals that the petitioners as well as respondents 6 to 8 were appointed on contractual basis against clear vacancies in August 2002 in JKSPDC vide the same item number, whereas respondents 4 & 5 were appointed on contractual basis in May 2005. However, it has not been specified in the said annexure whether respondents 4 & 5 had been appointed against clear vacancies or not. Further, communication dated 23.02.2010 of Chief Engineer, Generation, Jammu/Chanderkote (Annexure "T") reveals that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis. 14. Not only this, in response to an application filed under Right to Information Act, Executive Engineer, Electric Project Division, BHEP, Chanderkote vide Communication No. EPD/BHEP/11/143 dated 12.07.2012 disclosed that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis. 15. Therefore, the above factual position as well as reply to RTI application clearly reveals that the petitioners were engaged in August 2002 along with respondents 6 to 8 purely on contractual basis on consolidated monthly emoluments and not on need basis as claimed/stated by the official respondents in their objections, supported by an affidavit, which is nothing but an act of perjury. The affidavit has been sworn by one Ajay Gupta, Chief Engineer, Generation, PDC, Jammu, with the statement that the averments made in the objections are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and that nothing has been concealed therefrom, whereas, fact of the matter is that said Ajay Gupta has wrongly sworn the affidavit thereby providing wrong information to the Court just to deny the legitimate claim of petitioners and to justify the regularization of respondents 4 to 8. 16. Further, to justify the regularization of respondents 4 to 8, it was stated that they were doing commendable performance in absence of regular staff and had gained enough experience and skill in running the Power Project. 16. Further, to justify the regularization of respondents 4 to 8, it was stated that they were doing commendable performance in absence of regular staff and had gained enough experience and skill in running the Power Project. However, official respondents have also themselves admitted in the objections that in view of continued requirement of manpower for the operation and maintenance of the Grid Station, Receiving Station and 11 KV outgoing feeders for providing satisfactorily power supply to various construction sites for BHEP, extensions were being given in favour of petitioners from time to time without any break right from the year 2002; meaning thereby petitioners were also doing commendable performance against clear vacancies in absence of regular staff, as their services too were considered imperative by the JKSPDC and that is why extensions were being given to them right from August 2002 till 2010 without any break; thus with the passage of time they too must have gained sufficient/enough experience and skill in their field. Thus, on this ground too, the services of petitioners were required to be regularized from the date services of respondents 6 to 8 came to be regularized. 17. Also, petitioners were appointed on contractual basis in August 2002 against clear vacancies, whereas respondents 4 & 5 came to be appointed in May 2005 and it has also not been disclosed in annexure "J" (supra) whether they were appointed against clear vacancies or not. Even then, their services have been regularized by the official respondents. This is nothing but a clear case of discrimination with the petitioners. Therefore, on this score alone, the services of petitioners are required to be regularized. 18. It seems official respondents have filed objections just for the sake of objections and nothing else, without going through the factual position and bothering what type of stand they have to take in the petition. Therefore, on this score alone, the services of petitioners are required to be regularized. 18. It seems official respondents have filed objections just for the sake of objections and nothing else, without going through the factual position and bothering what type of stand they have to take in the petition. To illustrate, in paragraph-2, at page-2 of the objections, the official respondents have admitted that the petitioners were engaged in August 2002, thereby taking specific stand that in view of continued requirement of manpower for operation and maintenance of the Grid Station, Receiving Station etc., subsequent extensions were granted to the engagement of petitioners from time to time and latest vide order dated 26.08.2010; meaning thereby the services of petitioners were considered imperative by the official respondents, more particularly, State Power Development Corporation, and that is why extensions were being given in their favour right from the year 2002 without any break. Whereas, at the bottom of same paragraph, at page-3 of objections, the specific stand of official respondents is that although the services of Junior Engineers (private respondents herein) were required for running and maintenance of prestigious Baglihar Power Project, the Helpers (petitioners herein) are of no use for the answering respondents. It is very shocking that the official respondents have taken altogether two contradictory stands in the same paragraph just to deny the legitimate claim of petitioners, without bothering that their such acts/statements, which are supported by affidavit, may land them in committing the offence of perjury, for which separate proceedings can be initiated against them to befool the Court. 19. Not only this, in paragraph-11 of the objections, it is averred that the services of petitioners cannot be regularized after completion of seven years of continuous service in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 until and unless there are vacancies. Whereas, annexure "J" to the writ petition clearly belies claim of official respondents, which reveals that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis against clear vacancies. Since the petitioners have completed seven years of continuous service without any break and have been working against clear vacancies till date, it certainly attracts the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994. 20. Whereas, annexure "J" to the writ petition clearly belies claim of official respondents, which reveals that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis against clear vacancies. Since the petitioners have completed seven years of continuous service without any break and have been working against clear vacancies till date, it certainly attracts the provisions of SRO 64 of 1994. 20. Official respondents have also admitted that the State Power Development Corporation has no statutory rules of its own and has been following the rules of the Government; meaning thereby the case of petitioners was covered under Order No. 1423-GAD of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 as admitted by official respondents in paragraph-5 of objections and that is why they forwarded their case to General Administration Department vide Letter No. JKSPDC/ADM/E-146/CJ/3797 dated 02.02.2010. 21. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the writ petition merits to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed with a direction to official respondents to regularize the services of petitioners against the post of Helper with effect from the date services of respondents 6 to 8 came to be regularized. It is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including monetary benefits etc. with effect from the date services of respondents 6 to 8 came to be regularized. Connected miscellaneous petitions accordingly stands disposed of. Before parting, it needs to be emphasized that petitioners as well as respondents 6 to 8 came to be appointed on contractual basis in August 2002 as Helpers and Shift Engineers/Junior Engineers respectively vide the same item number. However, the services of respondents came to be regularized vide order dated 16.01.2010, whereas the services of petitioners were not regularized without any rhyme and reason despite the fact the official respondents time and again had been extending their contractual appointment right from August 2002 till May 2010 on the ground of there being continued requirement of petitioners. And, when the petitioners filed the present petition, in order to justify their stand, official respondents have made a wrong statement in the objections that the petitioners were not appointed on contractual basis, rather their appointments were on need basis, which statement was certainly contradictory to the factual position. Therefore, in the given circumstances, respondent No. 3 is burdened with costs of rupees fifty five thousands (Rs. Therefore, in the given circumstances, respondent No. 3 is burdened with costs of rupees fifty five thousands (Rs. 55,000/-), to be deposited by it in the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from today. On deposit, the same shall be released in favour of petitioners in equal proportion after proper verification and identification. It is made clear that in case respondent No. 3 fails to deposit the costs within the aforesaid period, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to frame a separate robkar against respondent No. 3 for defying the orders of this Court and committing perjury by the concerned Chief Engineer, and after issuance of notice to respondent No. 3 and the concerned officer swearing affidavit, list the same before the Court.