HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 20 7/2006 S/S Constable 4129 Sehgul Islam. & Others Vs Union of India, Approved for reporting. ________________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 25.2.06 Initial of Judge 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 207 (SS) OF 2006 1. Constable 4129 Sehgul Islam, S/o Sri Mis Baul Islam, R/o Mohalla Chaudhary Kasba Sahaswan, Police Station Sahaswan, District Badau. 2. Constable 41262 Dharmendra Singh, S/o Sri Ricipal Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Tikari Tehsil Badot,District Bagpat. 3. Constable 40878 Herdayal Singh, S/o Sri Lakhan Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Udhati Garwi, Tehsil Billi, District Moradabad. Petitioner no. 1 to 3 are presented posted as Constables in 31 Battalion P.A.C. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Constable 55986 Mahesh Kumar, S/o Sri Chunni Lal, R/o Village Ganeshpur, P.O. Dunka, Tehsil Merganj, District Bareilly, Presently posted as Constables in 46 Battalion P.A.C. Rudrapur, Distirct Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Constable 50676 Dhan Pal Panwar, S/o Sri Ram Dhan Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Basi Tehsil Khekra, District Bagpat. 6. Constable 50282 Naresh Latiyan, S/o Sri Katar Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Titabi, Tehsil Muzaffarnager, District Muzaffarnager. 7. Constable 50467 Madan Pal Singh, 3 S/o Sri Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Madora, P.O. Osamaphi, Tehsil Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar. 8. Constable 50258 Veer Singh, S/o late Sri Lal Sahai Singh, R/o Village Chakpheri, P.O. Khas, Thana Kanth, District J.P. Nagar. 9. Constable 50480 Daya Ram, S/o Sri Jagat Ram Singh, R/o Village Ruppur Tandola, P.O. & Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. 10. Constable 50406 Vijendra Rathi, S/o Sri Preetam Singh, R/o Village Sadbar, P.O. Sahpur, District Moradabad. 11. Constable 50855 Joginder Singh, S/o Sri Gangu Singh, R/o Village Walipur, P.O. Saradkadi Aziz, Tehsil Amorha, District J.P. Nagar. Petitioners no. 5 to 11 are presently posted as Constable in 40 Battalion P.A.C. Haridwar, Haridwar. ……………Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, through its Chairman, Central Advisory State Committee, State Advisory Committee Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, Gate No. 31, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003. 2. State of Uttarnachal, through Principal Secretary (Home) Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 4 3. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Lucknow. 4. Inspector General of Police (Karmic), State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. … … … … … …Respondents. Sri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the Union of India. Mr. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Dated: 25.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to relieve the petitioners for State of U.P. in pursuance of the final allocation as well as in pursuance of the official letter dated 10.08.2004 issued by Director General of P.A.C., U.P. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are presently posted as Constables in 31, 40th and 46th Battalion of P.A.C. situated at Rudrapur Udham Singh Nagar and Haridwar Districts. 3. According to the petitioners, they are permanent residents of State of U.P. and are posted in the District of Udham Singh Nagar and Haridwar on transfer from different Districts forming part of the then State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. On formation of new State of Uttaranchal, the petitioners were required to submit their options in favour of the State of U.P. or State of Uttaranchal. 5. According to the petitioners, in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioners submitted their option well within time limit prescribed by stating reasons for State of U.P. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 73(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganization Act”, the Central Government by General or special order as soon as may 5 by the successor State to which every employer shall be finally allotted for service. 7. Petitioners have submitted that the respondents have already relieved certain similarly employees from State of Uttaranchal to State of U.P. 8. It has further been submitted that this Court in different Writ Petitions Nos. 1373, 1374, 1375 of 2003 (ss), while disposing of the same was pleased to direct the Advisory Committee to decide the representation of the employees for their option for relieving them for the State of U.P. within six weeks. 9. Petitioners have further submitted that the Central Advisory Committee who is the competent authority has already decided the option matter for final allocation related to the retaining of the service of the petitioners either for the State of U.P. or State of Uttaranchal with due consultation of both the State Advisory Committee. In pursuance of the direction of the Central Advisory Committee, the Deputy Director General of Police (Karmik) Uttaranchal vide his letter No. D.G. Ek-117 (9) (2002) (4) Part-2 dated 30.07.2004 has supplied the list of constables working in the different battalion of P.A.C. in State of Uttaranchal who were finally allocated by the Central Advisory Committee according to their options, to the Director General of Police, P.A.C. Uttar Pradesh. In continuation of the said list, the office of the Director General of P.A.C. Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 10.08.2004 has given the acceptance for their final allocation in State of U.P. and has supplied the list of Constables of P.A.C. retaining their services in different District of State of U.P. and requested the authorities to relieve the constables for State of U.P. 6 10- Petitioners have further submitted that despite their final allocation, the respondents no. 2 and 4 are not relieving them for the State of U.P. 11. In these circumstances, it well be just and proper to direct the respondents no. 2 and 4 to settle the dispute of allocation and also to direct both the State Government to relieve all the petitioners to the State of U.P., which is allocated to them at the earliest. 12. In view of the above, respondents no. 2 and 4 are directed to pass appropriate orders regarding the relieving of the petitioners as and when it is possible for the State of U.P. 13. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 25.02.2006 Rathour