ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed in CWJC No. 12/96 (R). 2. The petitioners case is that he has been in the service of the respondent-Board since 1982 and has been doing his duty as par with the regular employees. It appears that similarly situated other casual employees moved this court making similar prayer in CWJC Nos. 1159/95(R), 1127/95(R) and 1244/95(R) and all these writ applications were allowed by common order dated 6.12.95, directing the respondents to regularise their services. The petitioners case is that a batch of such casual workers of Ranchi Division also moved the Supreme Court for regularisation of their services in which, after obtaining a list of such casual workers working in various division of the Board, the Honble Supreme Court directed the respondent-Board in Civil Appeal No. 766/91 to regularise the services of 257 daily wages workers with effect from 19.9.90. The order was passed by the Supreme Court on 13.2.91 in Civil Appeal No. 766/91. The petitioners case is that in the list of 257 daily wages workers submitted by the Board to the Supreme Court the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned working on daily wages since 2.2.82. It is stated by the petitioner that when the services was not regularised he filled CWJC No. 12/96(R) which was heard on 14.8.96 and a direction was issued to the respondent-Board to regularise the services expeditiously. It is contended by the petitioner that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court many casual employees including 24 juniors have been regularised in services but the petitioners case has not been considered. By amendment petition the petitioner has brought some subsequent developments occurred during the pendency of the writ application. It is stated that the respondent No.1 has circulated an order dated 2.2,2001 taking a decision to terminate the services of all daily wages employees including the petitioner declaring that the list submitted by them before the Supreme Court has been exhausted. 3. It is stated that the respondent No.1 has circulated an order dated 2.2,2001 taking a decision to terminate the services of all daily wages employees including the petitioner declaring that the list submitted by them before the Supreme Court has been exhausted. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services was considered and a decision was taken on 18.12.96 that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised for the reason that there are only 11 sanctioned posts for the helper to the electric mistry and out of that 9 persons have already been appointed in the work-charge establishment. The remaining two posts are reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. The petitioner not being under the reserved category, his case could not be considered for appointed in the work-charge establishment. 4. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, submitted that the Supreme Court has not passed a blanket order for regularising the services of all the casual employees rather the regularisation of service was subject to availability of vacancy and observation of reserve rules. 5. It has not been disputed by the respondent-Board that the petitioner has been working as casual employee since 2.2.82. It has also not been disputed by the respondent-Board that the petitioners name was included in the list of 257 casual employees submitted by the Board before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 766/91. The question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether refusal of the Board to regularise the services of the petitioner and also the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner is justified. In order to answer the question, it would be proper to look into the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 766/ 91. The order dated 13th February, 91 passed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned Civil Appeal reads as under :-- "Special leave granted.--The matter is heard with reference to the documents and affidavits placed as also the submissions advanced at the Bar. We are satisfied on the material placed that 257 daily workers are entitled to be regularised in the work charge Establishment as per the Chart enclosed to the letter dated 30.6.1990. We are satisfied on the material placed that 257 daily workers are entitled to be regularised in the work charge Establishment as per the Chart enclosed to the letter dated 30.6.1990. The names of those 257 workers have been approved by the administrative department of the Housing Board on 15th December, 1990. We, therefore, direct that Housing Board shall regularise the services of these 257 workers in the work-charge Establishment and they shall cease to be daily worker with effect from 19th September, 1990. So far as the remaining appellants are concerned, we make no direction from the material on record we are satisfied that the work-charge Establishment of the Board does not have scope to provide regular work for them. This disposes of the appeal without any order for costs. The contempt petition and the petition for intervention are dismissed as not pressed." 6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it is manifestly clear that the Apex Court directed the Board to regularise the service of 257 workers in" work charge Establishment and they shall cease to be the daily worker with effect from 19th September, 1990. 7. As noticed above, the Board has not disputed the contention of the petitioner that his name was included in the list of 257 workers. It is rather surprising that the petitioner has been working as casual worker since 1982, i.e. since 19-20 years and despite the mandate issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid order, the respondent-Board decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. The stand taken by the Board that the services of the petitioner cannot be regularised because there is no vacancy in the general category is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and against the mandate of the Supreme Court. 8. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed, the decision of the Board to terminate the services of the petitioner is set aside and the Board is directed to immediately comply the direction of the Supreme Court by regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 19th September, 1990. The order and direction must be complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Writ application allowed.