ORDER
S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. The Delhi Rural Development Authority (DRDA) was closed by the Government. The employees working in that department were declared surplus and were alleged to have been rendered jobless. These employees approached the Supreme Court and obtained the following directions:
“In the circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners that the respondents be directed to regularise them. The most that can be done for them is to direct the respondents (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 post, give them a preference in employment whereever there occur a vacancy in the regular post, which direction we give hereby.”
2. The Supreme Court while disposing of the petition had thus held that it will not be possible for the Court to acceed to the request of the petitioners to regularise them in the department. The Supreme Court had only issued direction to the Delhi Administration to keep these persons on a panel and if they were registered with the Employment Exchange and were qualified to be appointed on a relevant posts, they be given preference in employment wherever there occur a vacancy in regular course. This order having been passed, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court stating, inter alia, that the orders of the Supreme Court were not being complied with and they were not being appointed on a relevant post. When that petition came up for hearing before the Court on 10.9.2001, it passed the following order:
“We have made it clear more than once that it was not for this Court to review Tribunal orders dropping contempt proceedings unless these were shown to be perverse but it can’t be overlooked that Tribunal was obliged to enforce its orders in letter and spirit. In the present case, it is prima facie shown by petitioner that respondent Nos. 7 and 13 were not promptly responding to other departmental communications on the subject matters. Therefore, it would be imocuous to direct them to do so. Respondent Nos. 7 and 13 are accordingly directed to ascertain whether any such communications were awaiting their response. If so they shall attend to the matter on priority basis and furnish all necessary details to requisiting departments within one month from receipt of this order to enable petitioners to be considered in terms of Supreme Court orders.’
3. It is thus seen that this Court in its order had observed that the respondents 7 and 13 were not responding to the request of other departments regarding employment to be given to these employees. Respondents 7 and 13 were, therefore, directed to ascertain whether any communication was awaiting their response and directed them to furnish all necessary details to the requisite departments to enable them to consider the employees of DRDA in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court. After this order was passed, the department has finally on 4th December, 2001 furnished necessary particulars of the employees who were petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition before the Supreme Court, after making necessary corrections as submited by the Advocate for the petitioners. After furnishing particulars of employees in terms of the order of this Court, nothing survives in this petition, however, the petitioners submit that only 48 employees had approached the High Court in C WP No. 3844/2001 and the respondent should have, therefore, circulated the particulars of only those employees and not of all the employees who were before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that many of these employees might have left their place of residence and their whereabouts are not available and there was thus no need to send their particulars.
4. I do not agree with the petitioners inasmuch as the particulars required to be furnished in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court were of the employees who had approached the Supreme Court and not of 48 employees who were parties in the writ petition before this Court. As already submitted, necessary particulars of those persons having now been furnished to the various departments to enable them to take appropriate action in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, nothing survives in this petition. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to inform the respondents if there is any change in the particulars of any of the employees whose names have been circulated by the respondent to various departments.