IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 105 of 2011 (S/B) Smt. Sharda Devi Ginwal ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ……….Respondents Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P/respondent Nos. 4 and 6. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for respondent No. 5 Date of Judgment: 21.07.2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the petitioner was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh, while her husband was also an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. By virtue of Uttar Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000, petitioner as well as her husband became provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Central Government was authorized to allocate the petitioner and her husband to either of the States. The Central Government, in the matter of allocating provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh to either of the States, framed certain policies. One of them was that, if the employee concerned is a district cadre employee, then such employee shall stand allocated to that State, in whose territorial jurisdiction, the district fell. Since the husband of the petitioner was a district cadre employee and since the district, in which the husband of the petitioner was working, fell within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand, the husband of the petitioner stood allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner is a State cadre employee and, accordingly, was required to exercise her option for being allocated to either of the States. There is no dispute that the petitioner opted for being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. The Central Government has also taken a policy decision that when both the spouses are employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, both of them shall be allocated to either of the States. In other words, an employee shall not be allocated to one State and his or her spouse to the other State. In addition to that, the Central 2 Government has taken a policy decision that, as far as practicable, option exercised by a woman employee shall be honoured. It appears that on 16th May, 2006, the Central Government issued an order and, thereby, allocated a few persons working in the cadre in which the petitioner was working to the State of Uttarakhand and, while doing so, held out that who have not been, thus, allocated to the State of Uttarakhand should be deemed to have been allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. It does not appear that the petitioner took any effective step against the said order dated 16th May, 2006 until an order was passed on 10th May, 2011 when she was relieved by the State of Uttarakhand in order to enable her to join the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 2. No doubt, there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court in respect of the allocation purported to be made on 16th May, 2006, but inasmuch as, by the said allocation, the family of the petitioner would be disrupted and, inasmuch as, the decision conveyed thereby, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is contrary to the policy adopted by the Central Government, we think there is a requirement for interference, inasmuch as, in the previous round of litigation, it was held out that in view of the order dated 10th November, 2009, the writ petition of the petitioner, challenging her allocation to the State of Uttar Pradesh, had become infructuous and by the said order i.e. order dated 10th November, 2009, issued by the State of Uttarakhand, it was held out that in view of the spouse policy, she will not be relieved from the State of Uttarakhand, but despite such holding out, she had been relieved only because the allocation order has not been altered. 3. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the allocation order dated 16th May, 2006, whereby it has been held out that the petitioner stands allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Let the Central Government decide afresh the option of the petitioner in accordance with the policy and issue a specific order stating whether the petitioner stands allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh or to the State of Uttarakhand, in order to avoid all disputes in future. We expect, the 3 Central Government to do the needful as quickly as possible, but not later than one year from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances, New Block, New Delhi. Until such time, the Central Government passes an order in terms of the direction as above, it shall be deemed that the petitioner is entitled to serve, where she is serving in the State of Uttarakhand. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 21.07.2011 21.07.2011 Aswal