Item No.28 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Pronounced on:07.04.2026 Uploaded on: 15.04.2026 Whether the operative part or full order is pronounced: Full CPSW No.620/2018 MOHAMMAD AMIN GANAI & ORS. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Ms. Asifa Rashid Padder, Advocate. Vs. MR. DHEERAJ GUPTA …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, are seeking implementation of order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Writ Court, whereby following directions have been issued.: “As the issue has been taken note of, 1st respondent being the competent authority is directed to consider the issue on making a joint representation by the petitioners explaining from which date they were engaged, at what place and dates when they were dis- engaged. On receipt of the representation, the 1st respondent shall get a report from other respondents and verify as to whether petitioners are satisfying the conditions as contained in SRO 64 of 1994 for regularization of their services and if they satisfy the same, orders of regularization be passed in their favour. 1st respondent shall undertake and complete the exercise with a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with joint representation of the petitioners.” 2) The respondents have filed fresh compliance report/statement of facts on 21.02.2025. In the said statement of facts, they have submitted that the case of private respondents, namely, Shafia Sultan, Rehana Sultan and Nazir Ahmad Najar are different from the cases of the petitioners as the said respondents had performed election duties during the State Assembly elections held in September, 1996 and completed more than two years of service and, as such, they were regularized by granting the benefit of Government Order No.355-GAD of 1996 dated 30.04.1996. It has been further submitted that the private respondent, namely, Khurshid Ahmad Khan, has left the job and has never been regularized whereas regularization of private respondent Haleema Akhter has been declared as void ab initio. 3) It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents, while according consideration to the case of the petitioners, have rejected their claim for regularization on the ground that they do not fulfil the eligibility condition of seven years period of continuous service and that they have worked for a period of three years and even less and in some cases, they are no longer working in the department from November, 1997 onwards. 4) Since in the consideration order, the respondents had not drawn any distinction between the case of the petitioners with the cases of private respondents whose services have been regularized, the respondents were directed to file fresh statement of facts indicating distinction between the two categories of daily wagers. 5) It is clear from the fresh statement of facts that three private respondents have been given the benefit of Government Order No.355-GAD of 1996 dated 30.04.1996, which provides that those daily wagers who have satisfactorily performed election duty can be considered for regularization even if they have not completed the prescribed service of seven years. This is a policy decision taken by the Government and three private respondents have been given the benefit of the said policy decision. The record produced by the official respondents also shows that these three private respondents, namely, Shafia Sultan, Rehana Sultan and Nazir Ahmad Najar find mention in Government Order dated 05.08.1997, whereby a number of daily wagers have been regularized on the strength of Government Order No.355-GAD of 1996 dated 30.04.1996. So far as other private respondents are concerned, the official respondents have explained position in their regard also. Therefore, the official respondents have complied with the order of the Writ Court. 6) In view of the above, the contempt proceedings do not survive for any further consideration, as such, the same are closed and the contempt petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the consideration order by way of appropriate legal proceedings. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 07.04.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the Order is speaking: YES Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO