HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No.509(S/S)06: Badri Prasad S/o Sri Nanhe Ram, Presently posted as Deputy Jailer (Up-Karapal), Sub Jail, Haldwani, District Nainital. ---- Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal through Principal Secretary, Home/Jail, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 2. Inspector General of Jail, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 3. State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, U.P. Administration, Jail Administration & Reforms Section-I Lucknow, U.P., 4. Director General, Jail/Administration, & Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow. ----Respondents. Sri Prakash Ch. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 1 & 2, Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Prakash Ch. Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttaranchal/ respondent no. 1 & 2 and Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P./respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to relieve the petitioner from the State of Uttaranchal for State of U.P. in pursuance of the final allocation list issued by the Govt. of India further commanding 2 respondent no. 3 & 4 to provide the petitioner posting in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the same grade, b. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. c. Award the cost of writ petition. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is Deputy Jailor and is posted at Sub- Jail Haldwani, is a permanent resident of State of U.P. He had opted for State of U.P. In the year 2004, he was relieved by the State of Uttaranchal to the State of U.P. Vide order dated 03.10.2004; he was directed to appear before the Principal Secretary, Jail Administration, U.P. Lucknow. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner appeared before the Director General, Jails, Lucknow, however he was not permitted to join his duties in the State of U.P. and vide order dated 18.10.2004, the Director General, Jail Administration, U.P., Lucknow directed the petitioner to appear before the Inspector General, Jail, Uttaranchal, as the order by which the petitioner was relieved for State of U.P. has already been recalled. Consequently, the petitioner was again given posting in Sub-Jail, Haldwani. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the year 2005 a final allocation list has been prepared in respect of the employees of Jail Administration & Reforms Department and in the list, the names of the employees who have been allocated to the State of Uttaranchal is mentioned but the name of the petitioner did not find place in that list, meaning thereby that the petitioner has finally been allocated to the State of U.P. In spite of this factual position, the petitioner 3 has not been relieved by the State of Uttaranchal to the State of U.P. 6. The petitioner had made several representations, the last one is of dated 13th March 2006, annexure no.-12 to the writ petition, with the request that keeping in view of the final allocation, the petitioner may be relieved for State of U.P. but the respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not pass any order on his representations. 7. Under the circumstances aforesaid, I think it just and proper to direct the respondent to pass appropriate order for relieving the petitioner to the State of U.P. 8. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 & 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order for relieving the petitioner to the State of U.P., in pursuance of the final allocation list prepared by the Union of India. 9. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) April 7, 2006: NCM: