HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 340 of 2006 (SS) 1. Priyapal Garg s/o Sri Prem Prakash Garg Rampur Chungi, Roorkee, District Haridwar 2. Shiv Charan s/o Sri Tungi Ram Village Byali, District Pauri Garhwal 3. Rajendra Kumar Sharma s/o Sri Sohan Lal Sharma Golebhatta Milpa Nagar, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar 4. Sudesh Kumar Saini s/o Sri Hari Ram Kutubpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar 5. Suresh Kumar Saini s/o Sri Hari Singh Kutubpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar ………… Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India 2. State of Uttaranchal 3. Director, Govt. Litho press, Roorkee, Uttaranchal 4. State Advisory Committee, Janpath Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. 5. State of U.P. through Secretary, Industries, U.P. Lucknow ……… Respondents Sri Lokpal Singh for the petitioners Ms. Anjali Bhargava for respondent no. 1, Ms. Beena Pandey for the respondent no. 4 and 5 and Standing Counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3. Dated: 9.3.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 2 and 3 2 not to relieve the petitioners from State of Uttaranchal for State of U.P. in pursuance of letter dated 25.1.2006 and 25.2.2006. Briefly stated according to the petitioners they are permanent residents of State of Uttaranchal. The petitioners have submitted their option under the U.P. Reorganization Act for the State of Uttaranchal. State of U.P. issued a tentative list of the employees allotted to the State of Uttaranchal and the names of the petitioners also found place in the said list. Thereafter objections were invited from the employees. As the petitioners were already included in the list of employees allotted to State of Uttaranchal, therefore, there was no need to file any objection. The petitioners have submitted that when the final list was issued there names were not found place in the list of employees allotted Uttaranchal cadre. The petitioners filed a joint representation on 2.3.2006 and requested the respondents not to relieve the petitioners for State of U.P. but the said representation has not been decided as yet. In view of above, the respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners within six weeks after obtaining the certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall not be relieved till disposal of their representation. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated: 9.3.2006 Rajesh Tandon, J. Dhyani