TEJ PAL SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-44
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 07,2013

TEJ PAL SINGH VERMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) BEFORE creation of the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was working at Nagar Palika Parishad, Hardwar. The services of the petitioner were governed by The Uttar Pradesh Palika and Jal Sansthan Water Works Engineering (Centralised) Service Rules, 1996. He, accordingly, in terms of Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 provisionally continued to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the case of the petitioner, which is not being denied, that the petitioner has not yet been finally allocated to either of the States by the Central Government. By the order impugned, petitioner has been relieved by the State of Uttarakhand for the purpose of returning to the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has opted for the State of Uttarakhand, but his final allocation has not yet been made and by general or special order of the Central Government, petitioner has been asked to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttarakhand. It has been stated that, in such view of the matter, only on the decision of the Central Government, he can be repatriated for serving the State of Uttar Pradesh provisionally, but, as yet, the Central Government has not passed any order. We think that since the petitioner is working in the State of Uttarakhand from the date of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, he has been permitted to do so in view of general or special order issued by the Central Government to that effect. The same will come to an end only when the Central Government passes an order and, thereby, transfers the services of the petitioner provisionally to the State of Uttar Pradesh or finally allocates the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. That having not been done, it was not right on the part of the State of Uttarakhand to relieve the petitioner.
(2.) WE , accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the order passed by the State of Uttarakhand relieving the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.