IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1372 (S/S) 2006 1. Smt. Kanta Pandey W/o Late Sri Vimal K. Pandey, R/o House No. 197, Khurbura Mohalla, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Sri Laxmi Dutt Chausali S/o Sri Hari Dutt Chausali, Village- Kanda, Post Office, Sangaon District Pithoragarh. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Personnel Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, 2. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Excise, Dehradun, 3. Commissioner, Excise, 15/1 Gandhi Road, Dehradun, 4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, 5. State Reorganization Commission through its Secretary, Dehradun. …….Respondents. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned Asstt. Solicitor General Union of India/respondent no.1 and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 2 to 5, Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned Asstt. Solicitor General Union of India/respondent no.1 and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 2 to 5. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioner afresh and to finally allocate them to the State of Uttarakhand, II. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, 2 III. Award the petition in favour of the petitioners. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are permanent residents of State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed under dying-in-harness Rules with the respondent’s department and the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Class IV employees on 1st August 1991 in the erstwhile state of U.P. prior to creation of State of Uttarakhand, the petitioners had opted for State of Uttarakhand and the names of the petitioners was also included by the respondents in the tentative seniority list of State of Uttarakhand, meaning thereby they were allocated tentatively in the State of Uttarakhand, however in the final allocation list, their names did not find figure in the list of employees who have been allocated to State of Uttarakhand. Now by the order dated 19th March 2007, the petitioners are being asked to be relived from State of Uttarakhand and have been directed to join their duties in State of U.P. The Petitioner no.1 has already moved a representation on 22.08.2006 before the Excise Commissioner, Dehradun stating therein that she was appointed under dying-in-harness rules on 07.10.1998 with the respondent’s department in the district of Champawat; she is permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand and had opted for State of Uttarakhand, however the respondents did not include the name of the petitioner in the final allocation list issued for the State of Uttarakhand. Similarity, the petitioner no. 2 has also moved representation before the Excise Commissioner, Dehradun on 05.09.2006. The said representations are annexed as annexure nos. 5 & 6 to the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners made statement at bar, 3 that the said representations are still undecided and are still pending consideration. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 343/2005 (S/B) Dr. I.P. Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and eight others, decided on 21st December 2005; wherein Hon’ble the Division Bench has held that in the circumstances the petitioner should have been given opportunity and has further directed the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority raising all his grievances and till the representation is decided, the Division Bench directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post held by them. In the circumstances aforesaid, I deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent no. 1 to take decision on the representations of the petitioners moved by them on 21.08.2006 and 05.09.2006 (contained as annexure nos. 5 & 6 to the writ petition, within a period of there weeks from today, in case, the same have already not yet been decided. Till the decision is taken by the respondent on the representation of the petitioners, if the same have not already been decided or till 30th April, 2007 whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in the State of Uttarakhand. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, j.) March, 28, 2007: NCM: