IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 943 (S/S)2004 1. Kalyan Singh Rana S/o Sri Jaman Singh, Excise Inspector Sector-I Excise Department, Rudraprayag, 2. Devendra Singh Rawat S/o Sri Hayat Singh Rawat, Excise Inspector Sector-II Excise Department, Didihat, Pithoragarh, 3. Amar Singh Bonal S/o Sri Yashpal Singh Bonal, Excise Inspector Sector-1 Excise Department, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, 4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Prem Kumar, Excise Inspector Sector-1 Excise Department, Champawat, District Champawat, 5. Ramesh Ram S/o Sri Durga Ram, Excise Inspector Conferment, Nainital Excise Department, Nainital, District Nainital, 6. Sarv Singh Chauhan S/o Sri Jit Ram Chauhan, Excise Inspector Sector-1 Excise Department, Pithoragarh. ---- Petitioners. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Excise Department Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 2. Commissioner, Uttarakhand Excise Department of Uttarakhand Excise, Dehradun. ---- Respondents. Sri S.N. Babulkar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Babulkar, l rned counsel for the petitioner, ea Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 17th August 2004 passed by the Secretary Excise Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand, by which 2 the petitioners were directed to be relieved for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were selected as Excise Inspectors and were appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, after creation of State of Uttarakhand. After providing appointments to the petitioners, they were relieved for State of Uttarakhand and were directed to join in the Excise Department in the State of Uttarakhand. A decision was taken by the State Advisory Committee on 1st July 2004 that the petitioners who have been appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh after creation of State of Uttarakhand, should be relieved for State of Uttar Pradesh consequently, by the impugned order dated 17th August 2004 the petitioners have been directed to be relieved for State of Uttar Pradesh. Stand of the petitioners is that after being appointed in Excise Department, they have opted for State of Uttarakhand and consequently this court on 19.08.2004 has stayed relieving of the petitioner, which was extended on 03.09.2004. On the basis of the interim order, the petitioners are still working in the State of Uttarakhand. Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel Training, Personnel Grievances and Pension, New Delhi has issued a Circular dated 15th September 2004 to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh as well as Uttarakhand to the effect that a large number of representations have been received from personnel requesting for consideration of their mutual transfer with another consenting State services personnel. Since the central Government has already issued final allocation list, it finds no reason to entertain such requests. However, it is open to the 3 successor State Govt. to consider requests of mutual transfer based on broad consensus arrived at between the State Governments, inter-alia, either defining the terms and conditions for such consideration or by finding suitable Rules for this purpose. The petitioners are now intending to get benefit of the Circular issued on 15th September 2004 by Govt. of India. The petitioners alongwith their rejoinder affidavit have annexed a joint application as annexure no.3. From perusal this annexure no. 3 it reveals that the petitioners who are 6 in numbers and those of 6 Excise Inspectors who are serving in the State of Uttar Pradesh and have allocated for State of Uttarakhand have jointly requested that they wants to remain in State of Uttar Pradesh whereas, the petitioners wants to remain in State of Uttarakhand on the basis of mutual transfer policy. According to the petitioners, similar application has been submitted before the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners now claiming benefit on the basis of the Circular dated 15th September 2004 issued by Govt. of India wherein the Govt. of India has left it open to the successor State Governments to consider requests of mutual transfer based on broad consensus arrived at between the State Governments, inter-alia, either defining the terms and conditions in such consideration or by finding suitable Rules for this purpose. It is not disputed that the petitioners were appointed by State of Uttar Pradesh, after creation of State of Uttarakhand. The action of State of Uttar Pradesh for relieving the petitioners to State of Uttarakhand unilaterally was not correct, as such, I 4 do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 17th August 2004 by State of Uttarakhand, however considering the fact that the Central Govt. has issued Circular leaving it open to the State Govt. to consider the cases of mutual transfers and the fact that the petitioners who are 6 in numbers and are working in State of Uttarakhand and 6 persons who are also working in State of Uttar Pradesh as Excise inspectors have jointly applied for mutual transfers, I do not find any ground to direct the respondents not to relieve the petitioners for State of Uttar Pradesh. However it is expected from Govt. of Uttarakhand to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass speaking order on the joint application moved by the petitioners as well as by 6 persons working as Excise Inspectors in State of Uttar Pradesh for their mutual transfer, prior relieving the petitioners for State of Uttar Pradesh and after consulting State of Uttar Pradesh, in case, both the State Governments have reached to a consensus in respect of mutual transfer, as per the policy framed by Govt. of Uttarakhand in pursuance to the directions of Union of India and further, in case, the State of Uttarakhand comes to the conclusion that the State Govt. is in need of petitioners services. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) May 3, 2007: NCM