IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL CLMA No. 2700 of 2005 IN W.P. No. 4228 of 2001 (S/S) 1. H.C. 54 A.P. Rajednra Prasad, S/o Shri Vasu Dev 2. H.C. 13 A. P. Raj Kumar, S/o Kalu Ram. 3. C-18 A.P. Rajendra Singh, S/o Shri Babu Ram 4. C.60 A.P. Amar Pal Singh, S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad. 5. C.50 A.P. Ved Prakash, S/o Shri Tika Ram. 6. C.78 A.P. Krishna pal Singh, S/o Shri Hari Ram. 7. C.84 A.P. Gajendra Singh, S/o Fateh Singh, 8. C. 110 A.P. Arvind Kumar, S/o Shri Dharam Ver Singh, 9. C.113 A.P. Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Omkar Singh, 10. C.115 A.P. Satya Prakash, S/o Shri Bhopal Sharma. 11. C.123 A.P. Sahab Singh, S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, 12. C.17 A.P. Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Rulla Singh, 13. C.140 A.P. Ravinder Kumar, S/o Shri Mulchand, 14. C.52 Dinesh Kumar, S/o Shri Shyam Singh. 15. C. 328 C.P. Satyendra Kumar, S/o Shri Dharam Pal Singh, 16. C. 94 A.P. Tofik Khan, S/o Shri Irshad Khan. 17. C. 203 A.P. Rajeev Kmar, S/o Shri Baljor Singh, 18. H.C. 21 A.P. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Shri Halpal Singh 19. C. 135 A.P. Vijendra Singh, S/o Shri Satya Pal Singh, 20. H.C.1. A.P. Ompal Singh, S/o Shri Amar Singh, 21. C. 147 A.P. Devendra Kumar, S/o Shri Malkhan Singh, 22. H.C. 47 A.P. Mahipal Singh, S/o Shri Amar Lal Yadav, 23. C. 334 C.P. Kartar Singh, S/o Shri Sish Ram Singh, 24. H.C. Shiv Kumar, A.P. S/o Shri Ishwar Singh, 25. Constable 136 A.P. Pramod Kumar, S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, 26. Constable 175 A.P. Shreepal Singh, S/o Shri Brahan Singh. 27. H.C. 53 A.P. Ramesh Chandra Saini, S/o Shri Simru Singh Saini. All residents of Police Lines Hardwar, District Hardwar. …………………Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Home Affairs. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police Hardwar. 3. Union of India through Secretary (Ministry of Home Affairs), New Delhi. ……………Respondents. Dated: 21.05.2005 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Vikas Pandey, holding brief of Central Government. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to accept the option of the petitioners and to relieve them for State of U.P. Briefly stated, the petitioners are police personals and were appointed by the State of U.P. Police, under the Police Act and are permanent residents of State of U.P. Petitioners have submitted that in accordance with the provisions of the Reorganisation Act, all the petitioners have given their options for the State of U.P. and at present they are working in the State of Uttaranchal at Haridwar. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 where in para 9, it has been stated that the options for U.P. are likely to be disposed of very shortly. The petitioners in the aforesaid circumstances are directed to make fresh representations before the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3, who shall pass appropriate order relieving the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 21.05.2005 Rathour