IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 219 of 2009 (S/B) Smt. Asha Devi ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….. Respondents Present: Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel (State of U.P.) for respondent No. 3 Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, Judge Date of Decision: 28th June, 2011 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The husband of the petitioner, being a Lecturer of a Government College, was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh and at the same time, petitioner was also an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. While the petitioner was in the State cadre, husband of the petitioner was in Hill Sub- Cadre. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, both the husband and the wife opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the husband of the petitioner was a member of Hill Sub-Cadre, because of the policy of the Central Government, he stands allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The option of the petitioner was considered separately, when the authority considering the application was not in the know that because husband of the petitioner was a member of Hill Sub-Cadre, he stands allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Inasmuch as, the policy envisaged that the option of a woman shall be honoured as far as practicable and since the petitioner opted for Uttar Pradesh, she was finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh without, however, knowing that in the meantime the husband of the petitioner stands allocated 2 to the State of Uttarakhand. By reason of these allocations, petitioner and her husband are liable to be separated. The policy suggests that when both the spouses are employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, they shall be allocated to one State. This aspect of the matter was not considered when final allocation of the petitioner was made, inasmuch as, at that time it was not in the know of the authority concerned that the husband of the petitioner stands allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. 2. We, accordingly, in the interest of justice, interfere with the matter and set aside the final allocation of the petitioner made to the State of Uttar Pradesh. We request the Central Government to re-consider the option of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated above and do the needful in accordance with its policy. Until then, petitioner shall remain in the State of Uttarakhand where she is presently working. In view of the order as above, reliving order under challenge is set aside. 3. This disposes of the writ petition. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.06.2011 28.06.2011 P. Singh