IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5492 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.9.2010 Surjit Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Sr.Standing Counsel for U.T.,Chandigarh with Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court on 9.9.2010, an affidavit by Mr.N.P.Sharma, Executive Engineer (W&E), office of Chief Engineer, U.T., Chandigarh, has been filed, disclosing the number of posts lying with the Chandigarh Administration on or before 23.5.1996 and the number of employees working against those posts. The affidavit also discloses how the direction issued by the Tribunal from Item Nos.(a) to (g) in the judgment rendered in the case of Lalit Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (OA No.218-CH-2005, decided on 24.2.2006), have been applied and how 96 employees were being declared surplus. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit, the detail of the posts lying vacant in the cadre of Tubewell Operators with the Chandigarh Administration on or before 23.5.1996 has been given. It has been stated that there were 70 Tubewell Operators who were surplus but as on date either on account of retirement/expire/resign etc. none of the petitioners in the cadre of Tubewell Operator is presently surplus with the Chandigarh Administration. Once none of the petitioner is to be rendered surplus then the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the petitioners shall be entitled to continue on their present post. Accordingly, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and disposed of as such. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 29.09.2010 sd