HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) Writ Petition No. 522 of 2009 (S/S) Fireman Kanhi Singh and 45 others. … Petitioners. Versus Union of India and four others. … Respondents And (2) Writ Petition No. 519 of 2009 (S/S) Netra Pal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others. … Respondents And (3) Writ Petition No. 521 of 2009 (S/S) HCP 141 Hukum Singh and 33 others. … Petitioners. Versus Union of India and four others. … Respondents And (4) Writ Petition No. 523 of 2009 (S/S) HC 92 Ravi Kumar and 48 others. … Petitioners. Versus Union of India and three others. … Respondents And (5) Writ Petition No. 529 of 2009 (S/S) C-279 Mohd. Saleem Khan and four others.… Petitioners. Versus Union of India and four others. … Respondents And (6) Writ Petition No. 515 of 2009 (S/S) Anil Kumar Kashyap … Petitioner. Versus Union of India and three others. … Respondents Mr.U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, Ms. Prabha Nauliyal, Advovate and Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State, Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India. 2 Dated: June 3,2009: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Since in all these writ petitions there involve common set of facts and this Court has to decide common question of law, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these writ petitions have been consolidated and are being decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition no. 522(S/S)2009 shall be the leading case. 2. The petitioners in all the petitions are the personnel serving the Police Department in different ranks and posts. Some of the petitioners were opties of State of Uttarakhand whereas some of them were opties of State of U.P. but all the petitioners had been allocated finally to the State of U.P. in the year 2004. Due to some reasons like shortage of police personnel in the State of Uttarakhand the petitioners were not relieved to the State of U.P. in the year 2004 and were retained in the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The petitioners and other police personnel were relieved for State of Uttar Pradesh vide orders dated 16.05.2009 and 18.05.2009. Several writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the relieving orders. All the writ petitions were disposed of finally by granting the petitioners liberty to file representations before the Competent Authority and it was provided in the order that in case representations are filed within a period of three days, the authority concerned shall decide the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the representations. It was further provided that in the event of filing of representations, the petitioners shall be permitted to work at their place of posting till 31.05.2009 3 and in the event of rejection of the representations they will be relieved after 31.05.2009. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioners preferred representations which were rejected by Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun/Haridwar and the petitioners were treated to be relieved with effect from 01.06.2009. Aggrieved by the relieving orders the petitioners filed the above writ petitions. 4. Heard Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, Ms. Prabha Nauliyal, Advocate & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India and perused the entire record. 5. Sri U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel submitted before the Court that the order passed by this Court in writ petition no. 507/2009 (S/S) has not been complied with by the Competent Authority. According to him the State Government is the Competent Authority but the representations of the petitioners have been decided by the Senior Superintendent of Police of the districts who cannot be said as the Competent Authority. According to him since the order passed by this Court on 22.05.2009 was not complied with in letter and spirit, the impugned orders deserve to be set-aside and Competent Authority should again be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners and till the disposal of the representations the respondents should again be directed not to relieve the petitioners for State of Uttar Pradesh. He further 4 argued that the orders passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned districts cannot said reasoned orders as the representations of the petitioners have not been considered separately and merely by way of one line order the same have been rejected. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since the orders impugned are not reasoned orders, the same deserve to be quashed. He further submitted that initial relieving orders dated 16.05.2009/18.05.2009 are unreasonable orders as the petitioners were treated unfairly. The petitioners were finally allocated to the State of U.P. in the year 2004 but since there was shortage of police personnel in the State of Uttarakhand, the respondents did not relieve them inspite of their various requests and immediately after the Parliamentary Elections, the petitioners were directed to be relieved on 18.05.2009. It is argued that the action of respondents is unfair as the respondents retained the petitioners for five years against their wish, used their services and when purpose was solved the respondents have passed orders relieving the petitioners without giving them even a week’s time, though in normal transfer also some reasonable time is given to the employees. According to him the respondents should have treated the petitioners fairly and should have given reasonable time to go to State of U.P.. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate produced before this Court a copy of the letter dated 7th August 2008 written by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand to the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand in which request was made for arrangement of 25 Companies of Central Para Military Force, 2 Squads of NSG Commando, 4 Squads of Bomb Disposal Squad from the Defence Ministry/Home Ministry, Govt. of India and 25 5 Companies of P.A.C. Force, 10 Addl. S.P./S.Ps., 100 Sup Inspectors, 1000 Constables, 1 Chief Fire Brigade Officer, 4 Fire Brigade Officers and 10 Fire Brigade Officers-II from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Copy of the letter is taken on the record. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioners in a harried manner is not only arbitrary, unreasonable but is also against the public interest as well as against the interest of State of Uttarakhand as on the one hand the respondents are issuing directions for the petitioners’ relieving for State of U.P. but at the same time they are requesting the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand to make request to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. to make available 1000 Constables, 25 Companies of P.A.C. Force and other security officers. In this regard he submitted that the respondents are not acting reasonably in raising such demand when the petitioners and others are still working in the State of Uttarakhand and are ready to stay till Kanwari Mela as well as Kumbh Mela, which will start in near future and in case the petitioners are permitted to work in State of Uttarakhand the additional expenditure of money will be saved. 6. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners have been relieved under Section 73 (2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. They have been relieved in pursuance of final allocation order issued by the Central Govt. According to the learned Advocate General, once the petitioners are relieved for State of U.P. in pursuance of final allocation order they have no legal right to remain in the State of Uttarakhand as after relieving them to the State of Uttar Pradesh there remains no relationship of master and servant between 6 the respondents and petitioners. He vehemently argued that since final allocation orders have not been challenged by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in the present writ petitions. He submitted that in compliance of the order passed in various writ petitions all the writ petitioners were permitted to remain at their place of posting till 31st May 2009. He further argued that the representations of the petitioners were considered by the authorities to whom the representations were made and after due consideration their representations were rejected. Now once representations of the petitioners have been rejected, the petitioners cannot be retained after 31st May 2009 in the State of Uttarakhand as per the directions of this Court passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. 7. Learned Advocate General also argued that the letter dated August 7, 2008 written by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand to the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand in respect of Kumbh Mela which will be commencing in the year 2010 and that eventuality has not occurred right now. Additional force were asked for meeting the emergency during Kumbh Mela and in case the State of U.P. sends the petitioners back to the State of Uttarakhand for Kumbh Mela duty, their services will be taken by the State of Uttarakhand for a limited period. 8. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners were allocated finally to the State of U.P. in the year 2004 but they were retained by the respondents for a period of five years for one reason or the other and after lapse of a period of five years all of a sudden the respondents passed orders on 16/18.05.2009 for petitioners relieving on 7 18.05.2009 without giving proper time which the petitioners were entitled in normal circumstances. This Court is quite convinced and satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and holds that such action of respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. Though it is true that the respondents were at liberty to relieve the petitioners for State of U.P. but the manner, in which the petitioners were asked to go to the State of U.P., is totally unfair. The respondents should have given sufficient time to the petitioners. Again, after rejection of petitioners’ representation the respondents did not provide proper time to the petitioners and relieved them with effect from 1st June 2009. 9. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, argued that the respondents on one hand are relieving the petitioners for State of U.P. while on the other hand they are asking additional force from State of U.P. for Khumbh Mela. According to him this action of the respondents is not only unreasonable but against the public interest at large as by this exercise the State Exchequer will be burdened unnecessarily. But this Court feels that the State Govt. is free to make demand for additional force from any State as well as from the Central Govt. on the basis of its needs and such action of the State Govt. cannot be questioned. 10. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel further argued that the representations of the petitioners were decided merely by passing one line order by the S.S.Ps. concerned whereas as per the directions of this Court, the same should have been decided by the competent authority. In reply to the arguments advanced by counsel 8 for the petitioners, Mr. L.P. Naithani, learned Advocate General submits that the representations of the petitioners were decided by the authorities to whom the same were addressed. This Court is not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General, because, in fact, the State Govt. is the Competent Authority for passing appropriate order. In the matter in hand the S.S.Ps. concerned should have referred the matters to the State Govt. and the State Govt. should have taken final decision on the representations of the petitioners. 11. But fact remains that petitioners were allocated for State of U.P. in the year 2004 and those final allocation orders have not been challenged by the petitioners. Unless final allocation are challenged, the petitioners cannot claim any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondents to retain them in the State of Uttarakhand. After final allocation the State of Uttarakhand cannot be asked to retain the petitioners when State of Uttarakhand does not want to keep them any more. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondents are biased against the petitioners and there is every possibility that petitioners will not be paid their revised pay-scale and other dues. On this, Mr. Naithani, learned Advocate General states before the Court that even after relieving of the petitioners for the State of U.P., the salary and other dues admissible to the petitioners will be paid to them by the State of Uttarakhand as per rules. Thus, it can safely be said that apprehension of the petitioners is baseless. 9 13. In view of the forgoing discussion and in the facts and circumstances narrated above, all the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. Let certified copies of this order be placed in the connected writ petitions. (V.K. Bist, J.) 03.06.2009 NCM: