IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 420 OF 2009 (S/S) Hari Shankar Srivastava …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The short contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner may be given salary for the period between 12.6.2007 to 31.12.2007, which is being wrongly denied to him. The case of the petitioner is that he was a Drafts Man in the Department of Town Planning and Urban Development in the erstwhile State of U.P. After the creation of the new State of Uttarakhand by the Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000), the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand on 8.6.2007. This order of allotment was challenged by the petitioner by moving a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court being Writ Petition No. 23517 of 2007. In this writ petition, the petitioner was given an interim relief, inasmuch, the relieving order dated 8.6.2007 was stayed, but ultimately, according to the petitioner, the said writ petition was 2 disposed of with the direction that the State of U.P. shall decide his representation. This representation of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed on 15.12.2007 and he was asked to join the State of Uttarakhand and he joined the Department of Town Planning and Urban Development, Dehradun on 23.1.2008. The petitioner made a claim for his salary from the State of Uttarakhand, which was refused and consequently, he filed this writ petition. Although the petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand by orders of the Central Government, he continued to remain in U.P. by orders of the Court. The State of U.P., which is the main contesting party, has failed to file even its counter affidavit, in spite of repeated opportunities. This Court has observed such conduct of the Standing Counsel representing U.P. on various occasions. There is total apathy on their part on these matters. Even after repeated reminders and opportunities, the counsel representing the State of U.P. and the officials having the responsibility to file the counter affidavit have ignored the orders of the Court. Be that as it may, once the impugned order dated 8.6.2007, by which the petitioner was relieved from the State of U.P., was stayed by the Allahabad High Court vide its order dated 18.6.2007, the petitioner was liable to be given joining in U.P. itself, till further orders. If it has not been done, it will be presumed that he has performed his duties during that period and the petitioner is liable to get salary from his earlier department, for the period he was an employee of the State of U.P. 3. Therefore, Chief Town and Country Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Lucknow/ 3 respondent no. 4 is directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period between 12.6.2007 to 22.1.2008. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.12.2010 Rathour