JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar,J: In this application, petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/direction commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment as Category-2 displaced person, according to direction given in LPA No. 161, 162 of 1996 ( R) and Contempt Case No. 624 of 2004. 2. It appears that for establishing Bokaro Steel Plant,a large chunk of land acquired, resulting in displacement of huge number of families. It further appears that as a result of meeting between the management of Bokaro Steel Plant and Government, a decision was taken for giving employment to at least one member of each displaced family. It further appears that for giving such employment, displaced persons were divided into two categories. Category-1 consist of such persons whose entire lands and buildings acquired, whereas Category-2 consist of those persons whose only land acquired. It is decided that the persons belonging to category-1 shall be given appointment at the first instance, whereas the persons belonging to category -2 shall be considered for employment. 3. It is stated that the lands of petitioner had been acquired for the establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant. Accordingly, his name included in the family register of displaced person being family no. 153. It is also stated that Director Project, Land and Rehabilitation (hereinafter referred to as 'D.P.L.R.') had issued a displaced certificate (Annexure-1) in favour of petitioner, indicating that the petitioner is a member of the displaced family. It is further stated that D.P.L.R. sent a list of 33 persons, vide his letter no. 385 dated 29.9.1999, whose lands acquired for the establishment of Bokaro Steel Plant and non of the members of their family employed by the company as displaced person. It is stated that in the said list, the name of petitioner figured at serial no. 33. It is stated that in L.P.A. No.161 &162 of 1996(R), a Division Bench directed that after exhaust of list of Category-1 displaced persons cases of candidates named in the list of Category-2 displaced person be considered for appointment. Accordingly, it is stated that since the name of petitioner finds place in the list of Category-2 displaced person at serial no. 33, it is mandatory for management of Bokaro Steel Plant to consider the case of petitioner. 4. Accordingly, it is stated that since the name of petitioner finds place in the list of Category-2 displaced person at serial no. 33, it is mandatory for management of Bokaro Steel Plant to consider the case of petitioner. 4. Sri Rajiv Ranjan appearing for the respondent, Bokaro Steel Plant submits that some of the Category-2 displaced person has field Contempt Case (Civil) No. 20 of 2006, 34of 2006, 39 of 2007 and 178 of 2006 in which a Division Bench of this Court issued notice for non compliance of order passed in aforesaid LPA No. 161 &162 of 1996(R). Against that order, Steel Authority of India moved in the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Appeal No. 1774 of 2008. Aforesaid Civil Appeal disposed of by order dated 5.3.2002 and their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that Category-2 displaced person will be considered for appointment and preference will be given to them if other things being equal. 5. It is submitted at Bar that the present writ application be disposed of in terms of aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAIL Vs. Deby Lal Mahato reported in 2008(3) JCR 152 (SC). In the aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the list of 970 persons of Category-2 displaced person, submitted by D.P.L.R. ,and after considering the same, with a view to end the controversy, at paragraph no. 12 of the said judgment held as follow:- “However, in order to put an end to the controversy at hand, we direct that the 970 persons whose names have been included in Category (ii) as per order dated 7.4.1998 of the High Court will be considered for appointment, other things being equal. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that in the advertisement dated on 1.6.2007 for 300 general vacancies it has been mentioned that preference will be given to those displaced persons whose lands have been acquired. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads as under: “Preference will be given to local displaced persons of Bokaro as per Company's policy.” It may be made clear that consideration of the names of persons for employment does not give them a right to appointment. Other things being equal, they will be given preference in the matter of employment as and when vacancies arise.” 7. Other things being equal, they will be given preference in the matter of employment as and when vacancies arise.” 7. As noticed above, in the instant case, petitioner also claim that his case of appointment be considered because his name figured in the list of 33 Category-2 displaced person. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if in the future any advertisement will be issued to fill up vacancy and petitioner apply for the said post then if other things being remain equal with that of other candidates, the respondent/management shall consider his case for appointment by giving preference as per the Company policy. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.