IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1186(S/S)2006 Mahesh Thapa S/o Sri Ram Singh Thapa, Resident of 169/1, Hathibarkala Dehradun. ---- Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Excise Department Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 2. Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 3. Principal Secretary, State Reorganization Department, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 4. State of U.P. through Secretary, Excise Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, 5. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Pension, Public Grievances and Personnel, Government of India, New Delhi, 6. Chairman, State of Advisory Committee, Constituted under U.P. Reorganisation Act 2000, Gate no. 31, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. ---- Respondents. Sri Alok Mehra, Adv. & Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, Learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos 1 to 3, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. / respondent no. 4, And Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/ respondent nos. 5 & 6. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Alok Mehra, Adv. Holding brief of Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 to 3, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. / respondent no. 4, and Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India/ respondent nos. 5 & 6. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2 a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 5 to include petitioner’s name in the final allocation list of personnel allocated to Uttarakhand. b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1 & 2 from relieving petitioner for U.P. till appropriated order is passed regarding petitioner’s final allocation by the Central Government. c. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, d. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, at present, is working on the post of Excise Inspector in the State of Uttarakhand. He did not opt for State of Uttarakhand at the relevant time when options were invited. A tentative allocation list was published some time in the year 2004 and the name of the petitioner did not find figure in the list of the incumbents who have been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner did not raise any objection against the tentative allocation list and now the final allocation list has been published by Union of India on 2nd August 2006 even then the petitioner did not raise any objection before the competent authority as to why his name has not been included in the list of incumbents who have been finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand. 3 It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends that he might be relieved for State of U.P., thus he moved representation on 25th April 2007 before Union of India. The petitioner neither opted for State of Uttarakhand at the time when options were invited, nor he raised objection against the tentative allocation list prepared in regard to the optees of State of Uttarakhand and even against the final allocation list prepared by Union of India, the petitioner did not raise any objection. In these circumstances, this Court cannot pass order restraining the respondents not to relieve the petitioner to the State of U.P. 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 successor State of 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 in regard to the employees who have grievances against the final allocation list and for being transferred on mutual basis. In view of the Circular issued of Union of India, the petitioner may make representation before competent authority for his mutual transfer. In case, if some person working in the State of Uttar Pradesh has been finally allocated to the State of 4 Uttarakhand and further they are reluctant to serve in the State of Uttarakhand, it is open for the State Govt. to consider the representation of the petitioner for mutual transfer. It is expected that the State Govt. shall take decision on the representation, if any move by the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation. With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) May 11, 2007: NCM: