IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 250 OF 2007 (SB) The State of Uttarakhand and another. …………..Petitioners. Versus Sri Govind Singh Dhauni and others. ……..Respondents. Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / petitioners. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent no. 3 Coram: Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Per: Tarun Agarwala, J. List has been revised. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5 are not present. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/petitioners and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance Grievances and Pension, Government of India issued an order dated 12th May, 2006, by which the allocation of respondent no. 1 to the State of Uttarakhand was cancelled. This order was questioned along with the other orders by Govind Singh Dhauni/respondent no. 1 before the Public Service Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 12th June, 2007 suspended the government order dated 12th May, 2006 and directed respondent no. 1 to make a representation before the Central Government. The State of Uttarakhand, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is of the opinion that the matter of 2 allocation of the services of a government employee, whether he is liable to be transferred to the State of Uttarakhand or to the State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 cannot be questioned by the Public Service Tribunal. The Public Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim application. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 05.12.2011 05.12.2011 Rathour