* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14830-43/2006 BASANTI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate. versus PROJ DIRECTOR DRD GOVT OF DELH ..... Respondent Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Chaudhury & Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 06.05.2008 1. The petitioners, 14 in number, were earlier working as Daily Wagers under Jawahar Rozgar Yojana with District Rural Development Authority (DRDA), an autonomous society registered under Societies Registration Act. The said Society had independent existence and was not a department of Delhi Administration or Central Government. However, funds were made available to the said society by the Central Government. With effect from 31st July, 1989, pursuant to a new scheme announced by the Central Government, DRDA ceased to be the implementing authority under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana. Accordingly, the petitioners were discharged. 2. A writ petition titled Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union versus Delhi Administration was filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of employees like the petitioners, who were earlier working with DRDA. The said writ petition was dismissed and the prayer to direct regularization was rejected. However, after discussing the entire issue, it was observed as under:- “ In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularize them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondent-Delhi Administration to keep them on a panel and if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts, give them a preference in employment wherever there occurs a vacancy in the regular posts, which direction we give hereby.” 3. Subsequently, it appears that petitioners and some others obtained Awards from the Labour Court, which were challenged by the Delhi Government and DRDA before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 16th September, 2002 after recording the final direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union versus Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99. Direction in terms of the said decision was also given. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the petitioners were not registered with Employment Exchange but after the decision dated 16th September, 2002, they have registered themselves with Employment Exchange. Thereafter, the petitioners have been put on the panel but at the bottom of the list. It is further stated that the respondents are complying with the directions given in the order dated 16th September, 2002 and as and when the posts are advertised, the petitioners will be at liberty to apply and they will be considered in accordance with law and in terms of the directions given in the order dated 16th September, 2002 read with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union (supra). 5. No other issue was argued. 6. In view of the above, I do not think any further direction or orders are required in the present case. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 06, 2008 VKR/P