IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 257 of 2009 Yogendra Kumar .……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others .………. Respondents. Present: Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Date of decision: 10-03-2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) CLMA No. 1239 of 2010 (Delay Condonation Application) Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner states, that he has no objection if the instant application is allowed. In view of the above, CLMA No. 1239 of 2010 (Delay Condonation Application) is allowed. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Writ Petition (S/B) No. 257 of 2009 Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no. 1, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The petitioner was originally inducted as a Class-IV employee in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh in 1988. On the re-organization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner came to be posted in Uttarakhand, although he opted for final allocation to the successor State of Uttar Pradesh. On 19.11.2004, having changed his mind, the petitioner submitted a representation stating, that he could not assume his duties in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and he may be permitted to continue in the State of Uttarakhand. The representation made by the petitioner was considered by the Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Uttarakhand and through his D.O. letter dated 21.02.2005 he informed the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, that the State of Uttarakhand would have no objection if the petitioner continued to render services in the successor State of Uttarakhand, even the State of Uttar Pradesh, through its letter dated 05.06.2008, consented to the allocation of the petitioner to the State 2 of Uttarakhand. Since both the States concerned, namely, the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the successor State of Uttarakhand, had no objection to the petitioner being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, he continued to render services in the State of Uttarakhand. Additionally, by an order dated 06.08.2008, the petitioner’s allocation was finally revised and he was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. While the petitioner was posted in the Office of the Commissioner, Sales Tax in Dehradun, he received a communication dated 21.10.2008 informing him, that he had been permitted to join at Dehradun, subject to the condition, that the State Reorganization Department approves his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. While in the State of Uttarakhand, he was further promoted to Class-III service by an order dated 23.05.2009. Whereafter, on account of his original allocation to the successor State of Uttar Pradesh (vide order dated 18.05.2004) he was ordered to be relieved by the Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand vide his order dated 30.10.2009, so as to assume his duties in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is this order dated 30.10.2009, which is subject matter of the challenge at the hands of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, the entire factual position, as is relevant on the issue of allocation of the petitioner, stands acknowledged. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention, that it stands acknowledged that the State of Uttarakhand, as also the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, accepted the allocation of the petitioner to the successor State of Uttarakhand. It is also admitted, that by an order dated 06.08.2008, the petitioner was actually allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. In addition to the aforesaid factual position, it is necessary to notice that the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India issued a letter dated 02.11.2007, asserting, that in view of the financial position of the Class-IV employees, it would be open to the successor States to allocate Class-IV employees in terms of their option/desire. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, there can be no doubt, whatsoever, that the right of the petitioner for allocation to the successor State of Uttarakhand came to be crystallized consequent upon the determination of the two States, accepting to allocate him to the successor State of Uttarakhand. This position was legally justified, in view of the letter dated 02.11.2007 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Government 3 of India. In as much as the determination of the States to allocate a Class IV employee is concerned, was within the jurisdiction vested in the successor States by the aforesaid letter dated 02.11.2007. The successor States had actually accepted to allocate the petitioner to the successor State of Uttarakhand. We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order dated 30.10.2009, requiring the petitioner to assume duties in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh, is liable to be set aside. The same is, accordingly, hereby set aside. The successor State of Uttarakhand shall treat the petitioner as having been allocated as a Class-IV employee to the successor State of Uttarakhand, at the time of re-organization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh. The instant writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 10.03.2010 10.03.2010 Amit