IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 22 of 2011 (S/B) Jhaman Lal ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks to be relieved by the State of Uttarakhand in order to enable him to serve the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the body of the petition, nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. That being the situation, the question of the State of Uttarakhand relieving the petitioner to serve the State of Uttar Pradesh does not arise, inasmuch as, in terms of the mandate contained in Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, petitioner, an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh, after creation of the State of Uttarakhand continued to serve the State of Uttar Pradesh. The services, which have been rendered by the petitioner within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand in terms of the mandate contained in Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 should be deemed to be service in connection with affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. This order will not prevent the petitioner to take recourse to law for settlement of his final allocation. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.02.2011 22.02.2011 Aswal