IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 123 of 2010 Dr. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Gajraj Singh, R/0 490 New Vikas Colony, Jamuna Par, Haridwar, District Haridwar. …….…… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Medical Health, Dehradun. 2. State of Uttarakhand through Director General of Health, Dehradun. 3. Union of India through Secretary, Punargathan Ayog, New Delhi. 4. State of Uttar Pradesh through Director General, Ayurved/Unani Services Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. …...……. Respondents Present: Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. M.A. Khan, Standing Counsel (Union of India) for respondent No.3. Mr. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel (State of U.P.) for respondent No.4. Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 18.09.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) In the writ petition, the petitioner is contending that he has been finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh, but he is not being relieved by the State of Uttarakhand. There are two applications seeking permission to file counter affidavits beyond the time granted therefor. The counter affidavits have since been submitted in Court alongwith the application for permission to file the same beyond the time fixed therefor. In the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government, it has been stated that the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttarakhand is not disputing the said fact in their counter affidavit. It is the further 2 contention of the State of Uttarakhand that the petitioner has been relieved by the State of Uttarakhand in order to enable him to join the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by recording what has been stated above and with a direction that if the petitioner has not yet been relieved, he be relieved as quickly as possible but not later than one month from today. 3. It is made clear that the remuneration payable to the petitioner, prior to the date of relieving him, should reach the petitioner on time. ( V.K. Bist,J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.09.2010 P. Singh