IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No.110 of 2011 Balesh Kumar Tyagi and others ………….. Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ……………. Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel (State of U.P.) for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, Judge Date of Decision: 25th May, 2011 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In a writ petition, registered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1203 of 2007, petitioners contended that they are Class-IV employees appointed by the District Level Officer and they were, accordingly, employees of the district, in which they were appointed. It was contended that in view of the policy adopted by the Central Government pertaining to allocation of the employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh to the newly created State of Uttarakhand and also to the State of Uttar Pradesh, a district level employee, since would remain attached to that district where he had been appointed, should be deemed to have been allocated to that State within whose territory that district will fall. It was stated that in 2001, the Central Government passed an order to that effect. It was contended that in view of the said decision of the Central Government, petitioners stood allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, in view of the fact that the district, in which they were appointed, became part of the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. It was contended that despite that, a decision was taken by the Central Government to allocate Class-IV employees to the State of 2 Uttarakhand, when as was purportedly held out by the appropriate authority of the State of Uttarakhand that those named in the list stand allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and the remaining to the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was contended that taking cue from the said decision, petitioners were relieved. This writ petition was disposed of by the following order when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners:- “None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned Central Government Counsel and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioners grievance is relating to their allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. Now a new Committee has been constituted headed by Sri S.A.T. Rizvi, retired I.A.S., the petitioners may make a representation to the Committee and the Committee shall consider the same after giving them opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. The petition is disposed of accordingly.” 2. In view of the said order of this Court dated 9th September, 2008 disposing of the said writ petition, the contentions raised in the said writ petition should, in law, be deemed to have been decided against the petitioners. The only relief that the petitioners got was to make a representation before the new Committee and to have a decision from the new Committee. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking to re-agitate those contentions, which stand concluded by reason of the judgment rendered by this Court in the previous writ petition, which is not permissible. 3. It is contended that the petitioners have made a representation and that representation is awaited consideration. Petitioners are, therefore, in the present writ petition entitled to only that much of relief requiring the Committee to decide the representation of the petitioners as quickly as possible. 3 4. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by directing the Committee to decide the representation of the petitioners as quickly as possible but not later than one month from the date of service of a copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representation already made to the Committee. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 25.05.2011 25.05.2011 P. Singh