ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In both the cases, as common order contained in letter No. 576 dated 2nd February. 2001 issued by the Managing Director. Bihar State Housing Board (Housing Board for short) is under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 2nd February, 2001, the Managing Director terminated the services of the petitioners following Sections 25F and 25FF of I.D. Act on the ground that after regularisation of services of a number of daily wage employees on the basis of seniority and in view of reservation roster, the petitioners having not found eligible, cannot be taken in the Work- charge Establishment and there is no chance of taken them in the Work-charge Establishment in near future. 3. As the cases can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage since 1980-1982 and were working continuously. 35 (thirty five) daily wage employees performing the duties of Class-IV employees moved before this Court for regularisation of services in C.W.J.C. No. 1171/88(R), which was dismissed on 18th July, 1988. They moved before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11538/88. The case was heard, leave granted, converted into Civil Appeal No. 766/ 91 and finally disposed of on 13th February. 1991. 5. From the materials placed on record, the Supreme Court held that 257 daily wage workers were entitled to be regularised in the Work-charge Establishment as per the chart enclosed with the letter dated 30th June, 1990, which were approved by the Administrative Department of Housing Board on 15th December, 1990. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the appeal was disposed of with the following directions : "We, therefore, direct that the Housing Board shall regularise the services of these 257 workers in the Work-charge Establishment and they shall cease to be daily workers with effect from 19th September, 1990. So far as the remaining appellants are concerned, we make no direction as 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." 6. So far as the remaining appellants are concerned, we make no direction as 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." 6. It is not in dispute that the names of the petitioners also figure amongst 257 workers in respect to whom the Supreme Court directed the Housing Board to regularise their services in its Work-charge Establishment with specific direction that they shall cease to be the daily workers w.e.f. 19th September, 1990. 7. In spite of such direction, on the one hand, the Respondents did not choose to regularise their services and, on the other hand, terminated their services, vide impugned order No. 576 dated 2nd February, 2001. 8. The plea of the Respondents is that they have followed the reservation policy and the daily wage employees have been regularised as per seniority and reservation roster point. Out of 257, those who came within the reservation roster point as per seniority, their services have been regularised and rest having not come within the reservation roster point like petitioners, their services have been terminated. 9. Such submission made on behalf of the Respondents is misconceived and cannot be accepted for the following reasons. 10. First of all, the reservation policy applicable in the matter of direct recruitment and again applicable in the matter of promotion only with respect to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates. There is no rule nor any guidelines framed that the reservation policy to be followed for the purpose of regularisation of service of an employee who is already on roll. 11. This apart, it will be evident that there was specific direction of the Supreme Court to regularise all the 257 workers in its Work-charge Establishment. It never intended to exclude even one person out of 257 and for the said reason, the Supreme Court specifically observed that they shall cease to be the daily wage workers w.e.f. 19th September, 1990. 12. Such view having taken by the Supreme Court and specific directions having given, the Respondents had no jurisdiction to exclude the petitioners on the ground that they have not come within the reservation roster point and, if the intention would have otherwise like deliberate, one can presume it as contempt of Supreme Courts order. 13. 12. Such view having taken by the Supreme Court and specific directions having given, the Respondents had no jurisdiction to exclude the petitioners on the ground that they have not come within the reservation roster point and, if the intention would have otherwise like deliberate, one can presume it as contempt of Supreme Courts order. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, as the impugned order No. 576 dated 2nd February, 2001 issued by the Managing Director of the Housing Board is against the decision and directions of the Supreme Court, referred above, is set aside with further direction to the Respondents to immediately regularise the services of the petitioners from the date the others have been so regularised so that they may deem to be ceased as daily wage workers w.e.f. 19th September, 1990. 14. The Managing Director must issue appropriate notification/order in respect to the petitioners complying the Supreme Courts order within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. At this stage, the counsel for the Respondents submitted that some orders have been passed by the Patna High Court which may come in the way of the implementation of the Supreme Courts judgment. However, in absence of any such order or judgment, this Court is not in a position to observe in one or other way but, in any case, it is accepted that no Court has deferred the Respondents from implementing the orders and directions of the Supreme Court, as directed in the present case. The writ petitions stand disposed of.