COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1984/2003 Ram Singh Shakya …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary/I.G. Prison, Ministry of Home, Uttaranchal Shashan, Dehradun & Others …….Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel (Uttarakhand) for the respondent no. 1 to 3. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (U.P.) for the respondent no. 4. 21st May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 10.7.2000 awarded by the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the appointed day of enforcement of U.P. Reorganization Act. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal, which was pending. Then the U.P. Reorganization Act came into force. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal of the petitioner could not have been dismissed by the State of Uttar Pradesh as the petitioner was posted in State of Uttarakhand after the reorganization. Section 73(1) of the U.P. Reorganization Act says that every employee shall be provisionally the employee of existing State of Uttar Pradesh till the final allocation. Petitioner had retired prior to his final 2 allocation. Therefore, he provisionally remained to be an employee of State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 75 has no overriding effect over Section 73(1) of the U.P. Reorganization Act. Therefore, appeal was rightly decided by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the liberty to the petitioner to file either writ petition or claim petition in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with any dispute or writ petition in respect of the services of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.5.2008 Prabodh