IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 1564 of 2007 Upkar Kumar ……Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. Present:- Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Farida Siddiqui, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for respondent nos. 1 and 6. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J., (Oral) In terms of the directions of this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit is being filed beyond time granted therefor. Accordingly, an application has been made for condonation of delay in filing the said supplementary counter affidavit. A bench-copy of the said supplementary counter affidavit has not been submitted and that is the defect, which has been pointed out by the Office. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in course of today, he will submit bench-copy of the supplementary counter affidavit. On such undertaking, the supplementary counter affidavit intended to be filed is kept with the record. We asked the respondents to file a supplementary counter affidavit in order to deal with Paragraph –13 of the writ petition, where the petitioner has contended that he is a district cadre employee. This contention has been denied in the supplementary counter affidavit. But at the same time, it has been accepted that the Appointing Authority of the petitioner was a district level officer. It has not been indicated in the supplementary counter 2 affidavit that in terms of the Rules made, petitioner could be transferred out from the district, in which he was appointed by the district level officer. That being the situation, the petitioner, as it stands on the pleadings, is district level employee. In exercise of power under Section 73 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Central Government has already decided as far as in 2001 that all district level employees shall be allocated to the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the district falls. Petitioner being district level employee of the district, which has fallen in the State of Uttarakhand, in terms of the said decision of the Central Government, he must be deemed to have been finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and, accordingly, we allow the writ petition and quash the order relieving the petitioner. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 2.5.2011 Rathour