IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (SB) No. 413 of 2006 Jagdeo Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.P. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned brief holder for the State/respondent no. 4. Smt. Bina Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P./respondent no. 6. Dated: 19.11.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.05.2006 (contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3. It has further been prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take decision in respect of service condition of the employees of Statutory Corporation and to consider the case of the petitioner for treating him employee of State of Uttaranchal. Further it has been prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restrain the respondent no. 3 to make any promotion on the post of Executive Engineer without taking prior approval of the Central Government and till the decision of the representation of the petitioner in respect of his option to serve for the State of Uttaranchal. The respondent no. 3 has filed the counter affidavit. Today, during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 has also filed the counter affidavit. 2 Misc. application no. 9997 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the petition be finally disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in the State of Uttaranchal in the light of the letter dated 18.01.2007 (contained in Annexure-1 to the affidavit). Heard Sri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.P. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Subhash Upadhayay, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 4, Smt. Bina Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent no. 6 and perused the record. The letter dated 18.01.2007 reveals that the Managing Director of Uttaranchal Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam has submitted that the letter to Secretary Pey Jal, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun mentioning therein that the cases pertaining to Assistant Engineers, N.K. Garg, U.K. Gupta and Jagdeo Singh can be considered in view of the different judgments passed by the courts. The Managing Director has also requested the Secretary, Government of Uttaranchal to pass appropriate order in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission towards this aspect that in the light of the aforesaid letter, the Secretary, Pey Jal Nigam, Government of Uttaranchal (respondent no. 4) be directed to consider the matter of the petitioner in accordance with provisions of U.P. State Reorganization Act 2000 as well as under Clause-10 (1) of the Uttararnchal (Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975) Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner. 3 In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Secretary, Pey Jal Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun to consider the matter of the petitioner in the light of the letter dated 18.01.2007 submitted by the Managing Director, Pey Jal to the Secretary Pey Jal Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 19.11.2009 VKG