Judgment Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—The instant Letters Patent Appeal, for short LPA, is filed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2018, hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment and order, passed in writ petition, SWP no., 828/2009, titled Syed Abdul Wahid versus State& others, seeking its quashment and dismissing the writ petition consequently. 2. Let us briefly advert to the facts leading to the filing of instant LPA. 3. Respondent/ petitioner, claiming regularization of his services after having been engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1997, had filed a writ petition, SWP no. 1037/2002 which was disposed of by the order of the writ court dated 4th June, 2008, by providing that the respondents would consider the petitioner, who is continuing in service, for regularization under law at par with private respondents, if he is similarly situated with them in all respects, within a period of four weeks and he will be at liberty to re-agitate the matter afresh if his cause subsists. 4. Thereafter, the case of the respondent no. 1/ petitioner was considered and his claim was rejected in terms of order no. SSB/S-52/183-85/09 dated 08.05.2009. The rejection order, for facility of reference is taken note of hereunder: “Whereas, the petitioner was one among the casual labourers engaged by the Board during Special Recruitment Drive, approached the Hon’ble Court and continued on the strength of interim orders of the Hon’ble Court. Whereas, there is no provision in any Law/ Rules which envisages regularization of casual labourers. Whereas, the private respondents were appointed against the available posts and the petitioner cannot situate himself with the private respondents. Whereas, the petitioner is not holding any substantive post, his regularization cannot be made as per rules governing the field. Now in view of the given circumstances the petitioner was considered in compliance with the Hon’ble Court Orders dated 04.06.2008 and his claim is rejected as there is no Rule or Law which envisages regularization of casual labourers.” 5. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection order supra, the respondent/ petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition SWP no. 828/2009 inter alia on the ground that similarly situated persons have been regularized and the denial in his case is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection order supra, the respondent/ petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition SWP no. 828/2009 inter alia on the ground that similarly situated persons have been regularized and the denial in his case is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. The Learned Single Judge after consideration of the matter agreed with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner and in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 27th November, 2018, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to take all necessary steps for absorption/regularization of the petitioner on the analogy of other similarly situated persons. The exercise was directed to be undertaken and completed preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of the order was served upon the respondents. 7. Appellants/ respondents, feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge, have filed the instant appeal seeking reversal of the judgment and order and dismissing of the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and the facts; Writ Court failed to appreciate the objections of the appellants in its right perspective; the writ court did not appreciate that the respondent/ writ petitioner had not been engaged/ appointed against any substantive post, as such, had no vested right to seek regularization; there is no provision of law, rule or any other instruction from the Government which envisages regularization of Casual Labourers by the Service Selection Board; the writ court failed to take note of the fact that the proforma respondents had been regularized on individual basis by the Board as Orderlies against sanctioned posts; etcetera. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, went through the material made available, and perused the impugned judgment and order. 9. Mr Mir Suhail, learned AAG, appearing for the appellants submits that the writ court has failed to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant/ respondent that the respondent/ petitioner having been engaged as a casual labourer against a non-substantive post had absolutely no claim, in law, to seek regularization, therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in law and needs to be set-aside. 10. 10. Learned AAG further submits that the writ court has not at all considered the reply of the appellants/ respondents therein, with reference to the stand that there is no policy in vogue in the shape of any rule, Government Policy for the regularization of the casual labourers, to appreciate the controversy in its right perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment and order on account of non-application of mind deserves to be set-aside. 11. Learned AAG further submits that the private respondents in the writ petition were not similarly placed with respondent no. 1/ petitioner as they had been appointed against the substantive post, therefore, there is no question of having extended the same treatment to the respondent/ petitioner on the basis of parity. 12. In support of his submissions learned AAG, referred to and relied upon the judgments reported as AIR 2017 (January) SC 11 titled State of Jammu and Kashmir and others v District Bar Association Bandipora. 13. While resisting the claim of the appellants, Mr Faisal Qadiri, learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner submits that the writ court had taken into consideration the considerable length of service of the respondent/ petitioner and the inter se communications addressed by the respondents to seek regularization of the respondent/ petitioner and the discrimination meted out to him, therefore, rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. 14. Learned counsel further submits that the case of private respondents is not dissimilar to that of the respondent/ petitioner as the said respondents were also engaged as casual labourers/ daily rated workers to coup up the work of special recruitment drive. He submits that the writ court, therefore, was justified in accepting the claim of the respondent/ petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/ petitioner submits that the respondents/ appellants could regularize the daily rated workers in terms of SRO 64 of 1994 and the casual labourers in terms of SRO 520/2017. 16. We have considered the submissions made. 17. True that the casual labourer cannot seek regularization as no vested right accrues in his favour for such claim. But if the employer comes up with any scheme for the benefit of such employees governing their engagement, the service of the casual labourers have to be, in such eventuality, dealt with under the provisions of such scheme and the benefit, if any, getting accrued as such to them cannot be arbitrarily denied to them. But if the employer comes up with any scheme for the benefit of such employees governing their engagement, the service of the casual labourers have to be, in such eventuality, dealt with under the provisions of such scheme and the benefit, if any, getting accrued as such to them cannot be arbitrarily denied to them. The Government of J&K for the regularization of casual labourers and daily rated workers issued two SROs; SRO 64 of 1994 pertaining to the regularization of daily rated workers and SRO 520 of 2017 for the regularization/ absorption of casual labourers. 18. Mr Mir Suhail, AAG, was pointedly asked as to how the appellant/ respondents are dealing with the case of the petitioner/ respondent who is admittedly continuing as casual labour for considerable period, submits that that his case will be dealt with under the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017. 19. Since the matter pertains to the regularization of a casual labourer, and since the learned AAG has submitted that the case needs to be considered in terms of the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017, therefore, the relevant portion of the SRO 520 of 2017 which governs the subject is desired to be taken a look at in the first instance, thus: “SRO-520. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, the Governor is pleased to make the following rules, namely:- 1. Short title and commencement. – (1) These rules may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Casual and Other Workers – Regular Engagement Rules, 2017. (2) These rules shall come into force with immediate effect….. 3. Application of these Rules. – (1) These rules shall apply to all CSLWs and other workers as defined in clause (c) and (i) of rule 2 of these rules who have been: (a) engaged upto 17.03.2015 i.e. when powers to make such engagements were withdrawn vide Government Order No. 43-F of 2015 dated 17.03.2015 read with corrigendum issued vide No. A/Misc/2015/ 391 dated 20.03.2015, (b) engaged after 17.03.2015 upto coming into force of the rules, in accordance with the procedure laid down vide Circular No A/Misc/2015/364 dated 17.03.2015 issued by the Finance Department. (2) These rules shall not apply to a:- (i) person engaged in any Department as part-time, contingent paid worker or any other worker drawing wages at rates lesser than the daily wage rates notified/ sanctioned by the Government from time to time. (ii) person engaged on a tenure post or on academic arrangement for a fixed term in any Department. (iii) person engaged in non-governmental agency or autonomous body or public sector undertaking or corporation or government company or society or other local authority which have their own rules and regulations governing their functioning. (iv) person retired from any State/ Central Government or any Autonomous body/ local body/ PSU in or outside the State except Ex-serviceman; and (v) person working in any Department through any Manpower/ Private Placement Agency on contract or through outsourcing of services. 4. Eligibility for Regular Engagement. – (1) A CSLW shall be eligible for regular engagement under these rules on fulfillment of the following conditions that:- (i) he/ she is a permanent resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir as is defined under section 6 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. (ii) he/ she possesses minimum educational qualification of 8th standard or above. (iii) on the date of his/ her initial engagement, his/ her age was within the minimum & maximum age limit as prescribed for appointment in Government service. (iv) he/ she must have completed ten years of continuous working; Provided a seasonal worker must have completed 120 months of working in a department, in aggregate, in consecutive years with at least 6 months, in a year continuously irrespective of the total number of years in which he/ she completes 120 months of seasonal service. (v) His/ her work & conduct is satisfactory & no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him/ her. (vi) he/ she must be continuing in the department as on date. (2) The provisions of Article 35-A of the J&K CSRs shall apply to a CSLW in respect of the determination and the verification of age. (3) The concerned Administrative Department shall have the powers to grant relaxation in the age/ qualification for regular engagement of a CSLW on case to case basis. 5. (2) The provisions of Article 35-A of the J&K CSRs shall apply to a CSLW in respect of the determination and the verification of age. (3) The concerned Administrative Department shall have the powers to grant relaxation in the age/ qualification for regular engagement of a CSLW on case to case basis. 5. Date of effect of regular engagement:- (1) A CSLW shall be entitled to regular engagement after completing 10 years of continuous service with effect from 1st January, of the year following which he completes the prescribed period of regular engagement; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a seasonal worker shall be entitled to regular engagement after rendering continuous service of 120 months as defined under these rules with effect from 1st January of the following year in which he/ she completes the prescribed period of seasonal service. (3) ….. “ (Emphasis supplied) 20. The writ court in terms of the impugned judgment and order has, on parity with other similarly situated persons, found respondent/ petitioner entitled to the relief and allowed the writ petition by directing absorption/ regularization of the respondent/ petitioner. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in number of cases held that parity of equal treatment to similarly situated persons in case of public employment does not necessarily come into play and thecourts should avoid following such course and ordering regularization of an individual on a public post. It would be apt to reproduce paragraph 14 of the case reported as (2006) 4 SCC titled Secretary State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and others hereunder: “During the course of the arguments, various orders of courts either interim or final were brought to our notice. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that chaos has been created by such orders without reference to legal principles and it is time that this Court settled the law once for all so that in case the court finds that such orders should not be made, the courts, especially, the High Courts would be precluded from issuing such directions or passing such orders. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents based on the various orders passed by the High Court or by the Government pursuant to the directions of Court also highlights the need for settling the law by this Court. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. While approaching the questions falling for our decision, it is necessary to bear this in mind and to bring about certainty in the matter of public employment. The argument on behalf of some of the respondents is that this Court having once directed regularization in the Dharwad case (supra), all those appointed temporarily at any point of time would be entitled to be regularized since otherwise it would be discrimination between those similarly situated and in that view, all appointments made on daily wages, temporarily or contractually, must be directed to be regularized. Acceptance of this argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment. This argument also highlights the need for this Court to formally lay down the law on the question and ensure certainty in dealings relating to public employment. The very divergence in approach in this Court, the so-called equitable approach made in some, as against those decisions which have insisted on the rules being followed, also justifies a firm decision by this Court one way or the other. It is necessary to put an end to uncertainty and clarify the legal position emerging from the constitutional scheme, leaving the High Courts to follow necessarily, the law thus laid down.” 22. Taking the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as taken note of above, we are of the view that the writ court has proceeded on a wrong premise. There is no rule that provides for absorption/ regularization of a casual labourer on the basis of parity and the submissions made by the learned AAG in this behalf are well founded. 23. The court cannot also order regularization on the count that the individual has worked on a temporary post for a quite a long time. There is no rule that provides for absorption/ regularization of a casual labourer on the basis of parity and the submissions made by the learned AAG in this behalf are well founded. 23. The court cannot also order regularization on the count that the individual has worked on a temporary post for a quite a long time. The Supreme Court in case reported as (2014) 4 SCC 769 has, while reiterating the principles laid down in the Uma Devi judgment supra, held as under: “This Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193 , has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under: “8(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be “litigious employment”. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.” 24. As already admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General and as analyzed hereinabove the subject is covered by the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 and ought to have been dealt with accordingly. The provisions of the SRO 520 make it unambiguously clear that it will apply to all those CSLWs who are engaged upto 17.03.2015, therefore, the rigor of retrospective application of the SRO was also not coming in the way as the respondent/ petitioner is admittedly engaged as casual labourer in the year 1997, therefore, he would fall in the category of employees engaged upto 17th March, 2015. 25. The Hon’bl Supreme Court in a case reported as AIR 2017 SC 11 , referred to and relied upon by the learned AAG, has held that directions for regularization cannot be issued without considering either the legal position enunciated in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and without considering the prevailing rules and regulations on the subject. 26. 25. The Hon’bl Supreme Court in a case reported as AIR 2017 SC 11 , referred to and relied upon by the learned AAG, has held that directions for regularization cannot be issued without considering either the legal position enunciated in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and without considering the prevailing rules and regulations on the subject. 26. The appellants have admitted the respondent/ petitioner to have been engaged as casual labourer in the year 1997 and as on the date the writ petition 828/2009 was filed the respondent/ petitioner had already completed the ten years of service as such. Therefore, again the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 ought to have come into play. 27. In view of above, we are of the considered view that the writ court has based its conclusion on a wrong premise and the same being not in accordance with the rules or the law on the subject needs to be interfered with. 28. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment & order and as a sequel thereto the writ petition no. 828/2009 is partly allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the respondent/ petitioner for his regularization on the touchstone of the provisions of SRO 520 of 2017 within a period of two months from the date copy of the order is furnished to them. 29. Disposed of on the above lines.