PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. - (1.) Noting that the controversy in the writ petition filed by the respondent was covered by a decision dated 28/03/2006 by the Supreme Court in CA 5302/2004 : Avas Vikas Sansthan & Anr. Vs. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Association & Ors., the writ petition filed by the respondent has been disposed of noting the observations and directions by the Supreme Court which the learned Single Judge found to be applicable. They read as under:- "With regard to the appointment of 46 daily wage employees after the dissolution of the society, we hold that, in the facts and circumstances of this case there is no right on the part of any employee to be reemployed. Also daily wages employees cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be put on par with regular employees under any law prevalent as of date. The finding of the Division Bench that they can be treated on par with regular employees and be given various reliefs is wrong and erroneous under law. Therefore, we are not granting any relief to the daily wage employees as their claim is not justified under law. However, the Government of Rajasthan may sympathetically consider absorption of these employees in the vacancy available if any in future by giving them preference to other new applicants in any of their local bodies etc. subject to the following conditions:- 1. The employees will be entitled to salary/wages from the date of their re-employment and shall not claim for any past period; 2. The employees will not be entitled to pay protection, benefit of GO dated 25.01.1992, 5 th Pay Commission and the service rendered by the employees will not be considered for pension and/or other retiral benefits; 3. The appointment of Degree holder/Diploma holder Engineers shall be on the post of Junior Engineer on the minimum scale of pay; 4. The appointment of employees of Administrative Department would be on the post of Junior Clerk on the minimum scale of pay; 5. The appointment would be subject to suitability and physical fitness; 6. The alternative employment would be granted subject to availability of vacancy preferably within a period of 3 months. If they are absorbed in future the same will be treated as a fresh employment and employees / appointees will be governed by the rules and regulations of the absorbing Department if they are found suitable."
(2.) The impugned order gives no reasons as to why said observations and directions by the Supreme Court were applicable to the case of the respondent.
(3.) A little history of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court needs to be penned.;