IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 879 of 2008 (S/S) Ranvir Singh Panwar S/o Sri Jot Singh Panwar At present posted as Junior Engineer (Civil) Temporary Division, P.W.D., Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Pubic Works Department, Dehradun. 2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances North Block, New Delhi. 3. Chairman, State Advisory Committee, Vikas Bhawan, 7th Floor, Janpath, Hazratganj, Lucknow. 4. State of U.P. through Secretary Public Works Department, Lucknow. ...…………. Respondents Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Masroor Ahmad Khan, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3. Mrs. Bina Pande, Standing Counsel for State of U.P. (respn. No. 4) Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding respondents not to treat the petitioner as a person finally allocated the State of Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 31.07.2008. A writ in the nature of certiorari has also been sought quashing the order dated 08.08.2008, 2 relating to the relieving of the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis, in 27th Circle of Public Works Department, at Tehri. The petitioner joined his duties on said post on 04.02.1985, at Narendranagar. Later, he was confirmed on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and had worked for some 23 years within the territorial area falling in the State of Uttarakhand. Lastly, he was posted as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Temporary Division, Public Works Department, Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal. In the year 1992, the State of Uttar Pradesh framed U.P. Hill Sub Cadre Rules, 1992, in pursuance to which petitioner submitted his option for his inclusion in the hill sub cadre. Consequently, the petitioner was taken in the hill sub cadre, and his name figured at Sl. No. 362 of the seniority list of hill sub cadre, which was published on 09.02.1994 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition). The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Dhaura, Rama Sirai, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi. It is further stated in the writ petition that immediately before creation of State of Uttarakhand, 3 when the options were invited from the employees of the Public Works Department in September / October 2000, petitioner submitted his option for the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner’s case is that vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India, he stood finally allocated State of Uttarakhand, as he belonged to hill sub cadre. Copy of said Government Order is Annexure –7 to the writ petition. It is pleaded that the guidelines dated 07.12.2007, prepared for allocation of the employees between the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, included policy decision in its Para 1, that the employees who already stood allocated successor states vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India, would not be required to be allocated afresh. The petitioner has pleaded that since he stood allocated the State of Uttarakhand vide order dated 11.09.2001, his relieving vide order dated 08.08.2008, pursuant to order dated 31.07.2008, issued by the Government of India, is illegal. In Para 19 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that his wife is employed as an Assistant Teacher in Kanya Junior High School, Pora, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi and she too has been finally allocated the State of Uttarakhand, vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India. It is further stated that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 13.09.2000, it is provided that where husband and wife are the state government employees, they should be allocated one state. With 4 these pleadings, the petitioner has sought quashing of his relieving to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4) No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, in which it has been stated that pursuant to the final allocation order dated 31.07.2008, issued by the Government of India, the petitioner has already been relieved for the State of Uttar Pradesh. In parawise replies, it is mentioned that contents of Para 1 to Para 5 of the writ petition, need no comments. Contents of Para 6, Para 7 and Para 8 of the writ petition are also not denied. In reply to Para 9 and Para 10 to the writ petition it has been admitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1985 to work in hill areas. It is also not disputed that hill sub cadre was created in the year 1992. It is also not denied that a list of employees of hill sub cadre was issued in the year 1994, in which petitioner’s name figured. It is also not disputed that options were invited before creation of State of Uttarakhand from the employees but it is stated that petitioner did not opt for hill sub cadre. It is further stated that corrected final list of the hill sub cadre was issued on 21.01.1998. As to the final allocation vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India, it is stated that said order applies only to those who opted for hill sub cadre. In this connection, it is further stated that in the final allocation list dated 5 31.07.2008, since, petitioner’s name was not included with those who are allocated the State of Uttarakhand, he stood allocated State of Uttar Pradesh, as such, he was rightly relieved for said State. 5) On behalf of Union of India a separate counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner for his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand was considered and rejected, and the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee was accepted in not allocating State of Uttarakhand to the petitioner. 6) In the rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner averments made in the writ petition are reiterated. 7) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad hoc basis in the year 1985 for working in hill areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also not disputed that his services were regularized and he was confirmed. It is also not disputed between the parties that under the U.P. Hill Sub Cadre Rules, 1992, petitioner gave his option for said sub cadre and his name was included in the final seniority list dated 09.02.1994 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition). Contents of the Para 4 in the writ petition in this regard are not denied in the counter affidavit. Once this fact is established on the record that the petitioner belonged to hill sub cadre, case of the petitioner is covered under 6 Clause (C) of order dated 11.09.2001, issued by Government of India, allocating employees of the hill sub cadre, State of Uttarakhand. Said order dated 11.09.2001 is the order of final allocation. Once it is proved on the record that an employee has been finally allocated a particular state by Government of India under U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, the respondents could not have reallocated such employee State of Uttar Pradesh, without there being any sufficient reason there for. 8) The entire defence of the respondent State of Uttarakhand is that the petitioner had opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the respondents have failed to show where is that option which was submitted by the petitioner to get allocated State of Uttar Pradesh. It is significant to note here that not only the petitioner but his wife is also serving in the State of Uttarakhand as an Assistant Teacher in Kanya Junior High School and she too has been allocated State of Uttarakhand. Merely for the reason that under some confusion the petitioner made a representation in the year 2008, stating that he should have been allocated state of Uttarakhand, rejection of said representation does not make the petitioner allocated State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel drew attention of this Court to the list submitted by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2002 in which the State of Uttar Pradesh wrote to the Central Government that some 130 7 Junior Engineers (which included name of the petitioner) are required to be allocated states. I’m at loss to understand how the State of Uttar Pradesh included the name of the petitioner in said list as the petitioner has already stood allocated State of Uttarakhand vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India. State of Uttar Pradesh did not file counter affidavit to explain its stand. 9) Before parting with the judgment, it is also pertinent to mention here, that as per the guidelines dated 13.09.2000, issued by the Government of India (copy Annexure –12 to the writ petition) contents in Clause (C) of Para 5 provides that where both husband and wife are state government employees, it would be prudent while make allocation to allocate them to one State. It is also pertinent to mention here that Para 1 of the guidelines prepared by the officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand on 15.10.2007, which was issued vide letter dated 07.12.2007 (copy Annexure –11 to the writ petition) reads as under: “mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds xBu ds le; iwoZorhZ ioZrh; milaoxZ esa Lohd`r inksa dk mRrjk[k.M jkT; ds fy, vfUre vkcaVu Hkkjr Lkjdkj ds vkns’k fnukd 11&9&2001 }kjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% iwoZorhZ milaoxZ ds lanHkZ esa inksa dk dksbZ uohu ugha fd;k tkuk gSA” As such, it is clear that both the States agreed that the employees who already stood allocated vide order dated 11.09.2001 by the Government of India are not to be 8 reallocated States. As discussed above, petitioner, a member of hill sub cadre, as is apparent from the final seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) prepared in the year 1994 (copy Annexure –4 to the writ petition) since stood allocated under Clause (C) of order dated 11.09.2001, issued by Government of India (copy Annexure –7 to the writ petition), under Section 73(2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, and the respondents have wrongly treated the petitioner to have been allocated State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 31.07.2008, for the reason that his name did not figure in the fresh list of 41 Engineers. Therefore, the relieving of the petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2008, is illegal. 10) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The relieving order dated 08.08.2008, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. The petitioner is declared to have been allocated the State of Uttarakhand vide order dated 11.09.2001, issued by the Government of India. (Interim Relief Application No. 6910 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. January 09, 2009. H.Negi 9