Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners. Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Rajni Kant Tewari and Sri Ravi Ranjan for State of U.P., Sri B. N. Singh for Union of India and Sri Meharban Singh Negi, Advocate General assisted by Sri U. K. Saxena for State of Uttaranchal and perused the record. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions against the impugned order of allocation dated 22-5-2003 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Fire Services, Headquarters, Lucknow. It is alleged that on the basis of the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners have been provisionally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal against the norms and rules and the aforesaid impugned order has been passed by the respondent-authorities with-out following proper procedure as contemplated by the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act, 2000. Under the aforesaid Reorganisation Act, 2000 a new State, namely, State of Uttaranchal was carved out from the territories of State of Uttar Pradesh. Vide D.C. No. 2811/2000-SR (S) dated 13-9-2000 issued by the Secretary. Govt. of India, New Delhi, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions relating to service matters of State services other than all India Services Guidelines were circulated by the aforesaid Ministry. Govt. of India. Before adverting to the facts of the case and to the arguments of the parties it would be necessary to give the background of the case and the relevant D.Os., Govt. orders etc. as the matter involves allocation of employees of two states under the Reorganisation Act, 2000. Back Ground A meeting of Chief Secretaries of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was held on 6th September, 2000 in the chamber of the Secretary Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi regarding the principles to be followed for allocating personnel to services of the two States other than All India Services in accordance with the provisions of the Reorganisation Act, 2000. The guidelines were circulated by the Government of India by the aforesaid Ministry, provide for setting up of Reorganisation cell, to be headed by Chief Secretary or an officer of equivalent rank. The reorganisation cell was to be the nodal office for coordinating all service matters relating to State service including allocation of posts and allocation of personnel for State cadre. The guidelines provided as under : Allocation of Personnel : State Cadre Personnel should be allocated on the following lines : a. Those serving in village, tehsil, district division or region who are normally liable for transfer within such area and are part of such territorial cadres, shall be deemed to have been appointed to such posts by the successor State of Uttaranchal on and from the appointed day in whose territory the (sic) are has been included. b. Those recruited specifically for projects or undertakings where such projects/undertaking are part of the successor State of Uttaranchal on and from the appointed day would be deemed to be working in connection with the affairs of the successor State of Uttaranchal. However, those serving in the project or undertaking if they belong to State cadre shall be allocated to it In the manner as indicated below. c. The list of personnel for provisional allocation to the successor State of Uttaranchal against each cadre/category of posts may be prepared by the Reorganisation Committee of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh keeping in view of the preference of such employees and other relevant factors like maintaining the balance within each cadre/category of posts, domicile status, ethnic affinity etc. d. In making allocations as indicated in the para above, the importance of ensuring in each case as far as possible a composite and balanced cadre with age and seniority groups evenly distributed, should be borne in mind. e. In cadres/categories where the composition and balance of the cadres have not been achieved to the extent of shortfall, the list may be completed by including the names of the junior most personnel of the respective cadres/category. Relevant provisions of the Act According to section 72, sub-clause (3) the initial strength and composition of the State cadres referred to in sub-section (2) shall be such as the Central Government may, by order determine before the appointed day. Sub-clause (4) of section 72 provides that the members of each of the said services borne on the U.P. Cadre thereof immediately before the appointed day shall be allocated to the State cadres of the same service constituted under sub-section (2) in such manner and with effect from such date or dates as the Central Government may, by order, specify. Section 73 provides that every person who serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of U.P. shall on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the fate of U.P. unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal. There is no final order by the Central Govt. respect of any of the petitioners allocating a particular State under the U.P. Reorganisation Act though more than one year has elapsed from the appointed date. The Central Govt. has failed to pass any order and take final decision in consultation with the Govt. of the States. The proviso to sub section (3) of section 73 provides that every person who is finally allocated under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreements, as may be determined by the Central Govt. The reasons for provisional allocation have been given in the letter dated 15-9-2002. which has been appended to the writ petition. Under Section 74, the person who has been allocated either to the State of U. P. or the State of Uttaranchal can file the objection, as his services cannot be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Govt. From the perusal of the Section 76 of the U. P. Re-organisation Act 2000 it is evident that the Central Govt. is empowered to establish one or more advisory committees for assisting in the allocation of the employees after consideration made by the employees. The Central Govt. also had power to issue a direction to the State of U. P. or the Uttaranchal as the case may be for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions pertaining to the services of petitioner, as it is incumbent upon the State Govt. to comply with such directions. The guidelines provided for taking option from Employees whose services were transferable within the State. They were required to indicate their preference in the prescribed proforma to serve in either of the Successor State after their reorganisation without prejudice to their rights. The State Government has right to post such employees either provisionally or finally in any of the successor state in administrative interest or in the exigencies of public service. The Reorganisation Committee of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh was required to send provisional list to the Central Government by 15th October. 2000 with the approval of the State Government. A tentative time schedule for actions to be taken by the existing State Government of Uttar Pradesh on and before the Appointed Day was also indicated. Close monitoring of various action points for finalisation of the exercise was provided to enable staff to take up their posts on the Appointed Day in the Successor State of Uttaranchal was also provided for. By order dated 25-9-2000 (sic) the State of Uttar Pradesh also directed the District Administration and all the concerned departments to take options from their personnel willing to go to State of Uttaranchal. In pursuance thereof the concerned departments sought option from the personnel concerned. The Guideline No.3 relating to Allocation of Personnel for the newly created States. Clause (c) & (e) are in respect of maintaining the balance within each cadre/category of posts, domicile status, ethnic affinity etc., and/or if the requirement of personnel is not fulfilled then to take the junior most in the same pay scale while preparing the list of personnel for provisional allocation. It appears that the Government of both the successor States were facing problems regarding allocation of personnel, inasmuch as there was a pending litigation against allocations of some of the personnel. To tackle such problems, a meeting of the State Advisory Committee was held on July 2nd, 2002 at Nainital, Uttaranchal, where certain norms were laid down and previous policies were revised vide G. O. dated 6-11-2000 as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... It is urged that The State Government and the Central Government were finding difficulty in making allocations as most of the options were coming for the State of UP even, the domiciles of State of Uttaranchal were also giving options for the State of UP therefore in pursuance of Departmental Order dated 13-9-00, the Chief Secretary Government of UP issued Government Order dated 6-11-00 classifying the employees into three categories based on. (a) option (b) domicile (c) Junior most in each batch and pay scale. Then too, if any vacancy remained the junior most promoted, in each cadre and pay Scale, was to be sent on deputation until the next batch is promoted and when the junior most from the next promoted batch was to be sent the previous employee was to be called back. As the respondent authorities were still not able to cope up with the problems therefore the State Advisory Committee held meetings in Naini Tal in which the Chief Secretaries of both the States along with other Secretaries discussed various problems where in the "NORMS AND CRITERIA" for allocation were formulated. Under the reorganisation Act-2000, the Government of India Could issue order unilaterally for a period of one year for allocation of the employees/ officers and thereafter with consultation and an advice of the two state Governments. Vide letter dated 15th November, 2000, Government of India, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttaranchal that the Central Government has issued the provisional allocation orders under sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the U. P. Reorganisation Act. 2000 to dispel any misgivings. The employees were to be given opportunity to represent against their allocation, and they were informed that their representations, if any, will be considered by the State Advisory Committee, which was to be set up soon by the Central Government. It was also informed that the final allocation orders will be issued in respect of the employees for the successor States in terms of Section 73(2) of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. The State advisory committee was constituted by the Central Government under Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act 2000 and held its first meeting on 28-4-2001. Vide D. 0. dated 21st December, 2000 issued by the Secretary Govt. of India, following matters were to be provided for 1. Composition of State advisory committee. 2. Objectives of the State Advisory Committee. 3. Mandate for the State Advisory Committee. 4. Principal for final allocation of employees. 5. Responsibilities of the successor State Govt. 6. Consideration of time barred representations. 7. Time frame. The relevant provisions of D.O. dated 21-12-2000 for decision in this case is the principles for final allocation of employees, consideration of time barred representations and time frame as provided in G.O. dated 21-12-2000. Mandate for the State Advisory Committee and the principles for final allocation of employees. 1. The objectives of the State Advisory Committee were to assist the Central Govt. in regard to discharge of the functions in regard to State Government employees under the part "provisions and to services" as provided in U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 to ensure fair and equitable treatment to State Govt. employees affected by the afore-said provisions and for proper consideration of representations made by them. 2. The State Advisory Committee after Going Through the Details of sanctioned posts category-wise, cadre-wise, shall finalise the distribution of posts between the successor States keeping in view the administrative structure of departments. 3. After the distribution of posts is finalised by the State Advisory Committee, to draw a tentative allocation list in respect of all employees who are to be allocated on a final basis to either of the successor States. While doing so, reservation policy as applicable was to be kept in mind. 4. The State Advisory Committee would thereafter circulate the tentative allocation list to the respective successor State Governments for information to their employees and for submission of representations by them, if any. 5. The State Advisory Committee would consider the representations made by employees against the tentative allocation list and forward their recommendations to the Central Government for taking a final view in the matter; and 6. Based on the advice received from the Central Government on the recommendations made by the State Advisory Committee, the tentative allocation list would be made final and the same would be passed on to the respective successor State Governments for issue of final allocation orders. Principles for final allocation of employees :
(2.) Final allocation of employees was to be based on distribution of post to be finalised by the State Advisory Committee. The final allocation of all employees should be such that it is evenly distributed according to the age and seniority so as to make composite and balanced cadre in the successor State. All employees who have been working in the State of Uttar Pradesh immediately before the appointed day, and belonging to such State services which are transferable anywhere in the entire State should be covered in final allocation. In other words, there should not be left any case of unallocated employee. The reservation policy as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh existing immediately before the appointed day, is to apply in respect of final allocation of employees to either of the successor State. In respect of educational institutions those imparting technical and medical education. the State Advisory Committee may consider making their final allocation earlier. Where both husband and wife are Government employees, the committee would consider to allocate them to one state, as far as practicable. The State Advisory Committee would be at liberty to consider any principle /factor, which may become crucial In deciding the allocation of employees to the successor States.
(3.) As pointed out above, it would be desirable that the legitimate grievance of an employee is considered notwithstanding the fact that the representation is received late. The intention of the Central Government being to ensure that justice should not be denied to an employee merely on the ground that he is late in seeking redress. The procedure prescribed for working out allocation within time limit is as under : Time Barred Representation (a) All representations received after the due dates were to be taken up for consideration. It is likely that in some cases, an employee for sufficient reason is unable to submit his representation in time. In such cases It would be inequitable to withhold the representation merely on the grounds that It has been received late. Representations. in all such cases, received after the due date may be examined. Time Frame. The State Advisory Committee will finalise the distribution of posts for the successor States within one Month from the date of Constitution. It will draw the tentative list of employees within two months from the date the distributions of posts are finalised for final allocation. The State Advisory Committee will circulate the tentative list to the successor States for notification to all employees regarding their final allocation and to submit their representations, if any, against the final allocation within a period of fifteen days from the date the tentative list is finalized. The employees affected by the tentative list would submit their representation through their respective Chief Secretaries giving detailed reasons for consideration within one months from the date of notification of the tentative list. Advisory Committee will thereafter forward their recommendations to the Central Government within two months from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee. The Central Government after considering the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee will convey its decision to the State Advisory Committee within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee. Lastly the Successor State Governments based on the decisions conveyed by the Central Government will notify the final list for information of all concerned within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the final allocation list. The whole exercise would thus be completed in a time framed of 8 months from the date of constitution of the State Advisory Committee. The first meeting of the State Advisory Committee has been held on 28-4-2001, the exercise of allocation of all the employees ought to have been completed by end of November 2001 but the time schedule has not been adhered to. Revised G. O. dated 15-7-2002 The State Government issued the revised G.O. dated 15-7-2002 regarding final allocation of the personnel on the basis of the norms and guidelines laid down by the State Advisory Committee taken In its meeting dated 15-7-2002. The enclosure No. 4 to the G.O. dated 6-11-2000 are said not to be in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the State Advisory Committee, inasmuch it is alleged that the pro rata of personal pay scale wise and the reservation was fixed arbitrarily and illegally. The G. O. dated 15-7-2002 issued by the member Secretary, State Advisory Committee, Utter Pradesh Shashan is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Facts of the case In the aforesaid backdrop the case of the petitioner is to be considered. The petitioners are employees of State of Uttar Pradesh. They have challenged their tentative allocation under the U. P. Reorginasation Act, 2000. In the State Government letter Dated 19-5-2003 reference has been made to the Government Order No. 920/Cha-Pu-8-2003-218HE/98 dated 8-4-2003, notification No. 767/28-1-2003 dated 3-5-2003 and letter No. 158/Sachiv. Uttaranchal/Samanya Vibhg/2003 dated 3-5-2003 which are said to have not been provided to the petitioners. The aforesaid Government Order dated 19-5-2003 does not indicate that any consultation between the Advisory Committees aforesaid took place before the impugned order was issued. Interim orders in favour of the petitioners were passed in the writ petitions, which are still in force. The operative portion of the order of the Court in one of the petitions is quoted below : "Until further orders of this Court, petitioners allocation and transfer to Uttaranchal and relieving for transfer to Uttaranchal shall remain stayed." With the consent of the parties. Writ Petition No. 27131 of 2003 (Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others) is being heard as the leading case. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases the Court vide order dated 3-7-2003 clubbed together the petitions challenging the allocation orders. Thereafter vide order dated 7-7-2003 the Court directed all the respondents including the State of U. P. State of Uttaranchal as well as Union of India to file their detailed counter affidavits within two weeks. The State Government has filed a short counter affidavit. The Union of India has also filed a short counter affidavit in some of the petitions. The State of Uttaranchal and State Advisory Committee have not filed any counter affidavit in any of the writ petitions in spite of time having been granted. The State Government in the short counter affidavit has taken stand that writ petitions are premature as the impugned allocation list is tentative and final allocation has not been made as yet by the Central Govt. as provided in Section 76 of the Reorganisation Act 2000. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners Sri Vijay Gautam is that the first condition for allocating personnel is domicile status, and the remaining vacancies, if any, left thereafter have to be allocated as per the provisions contained in Rules 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as laid down in the G. O. dated 1-7-2002. It is submitted that the State Government has ignored it and committed discrimination on the basis of caste, creed and sex which is not permissible and is contrary to the "Constitutional Mandate of Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment," contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by him that the State Government of U. P. vide G. O. dated 15-7-2002 fixed reservation for O. B. C. as 27 percent and for S. C. as 21 percent, whereas the persons who were appointed prior to the year 1994 were given the benefit of reservation for O. B. C. 15 percent and for S. C./S.T. 18 percent which has affected general category. Reservation in one batch of the O. B. C. and S. C./S. T. is different from two batches under rule 4 of the G. O. dated 15-7-2002 that rule Nos. 5 and 6 of the aforesaid G. O. dated 15-7-2002 is in contradiction with each other, inasmuch as rule 6 lays down that woman /female personnel shall be allocated on optional basis, whereas rule lays down that if their husbands fall under the rule 2 or rule 3 then they shall be allocated State of Uttaranchal. It is also submitted by him that subsequent to issuance of the G.O. dated 15-7-2002 the personnel of the U. R Secretariat resorted to demonstrations, consequent to which the Principal Secretary, U. P., Secretariat, Administrative Department informed the President of the U. P. Secretariat Association that the members of the Secretariat Association shall not be given allocation to the State of Uttarnachal against their wishes, thereby committing hostile discrimination amongst similarly situated employees, which is against well settled principles of equality and fair play and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further that the members of the State Advisory Committee as well as the members of the Secretariat Personnel's are all affected by the Reorganisation and Allocation of personnel by Prorate phenomena and therefore it is against fair play as such they cannot be the Judge of their own cause being affected personnel and they cannot formulate and lay down the criteria. It is urged by Sri B. D. Pandey that the petitioners have not been finally allocated to the State of Uttaranchal under Section 76 of the U. P. Recorganization Act 2000. It is alleged that the formal allocation of employees of existing State of U. P. to the newly created State of Uttaranchal cannot be decided by the State Governments of Uttar Pradesh or the Uttaranchal. It is urged that more than one year has elapsed since the State of Uttaranchal has came into existence and as such the final allocation has to be taken by the Central Govt. in consultation with the Advisory Committees of the two states constituted under the U. P. Reorganisation Act 2000. All the petitioners are said to be permanent residents of different districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. They do not either have any movable or immovable property in the Uttaranchal State nor they have given the options for Uttaranchal State and they are not junior most in their cadre. He submits that neither any notice was issued by the respondents, authorities nor the petitioners were afforded any opportunity to submit their objections nor any material was disclosed to the petitioners on the basis of which the impugned order was passed hence the impugned order is illegal and Is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to law and is without jurisdiction. Some of the employees who received information regarding provisional allocation of State in terms raised objections against their allocation but some of the employees even did not receive any information about their allocation but some of the employees even did not receive any information about their provisional allocation, some employees received information just before the expiry of the last date i.e. the date by which they were supposed to file objections. Smt. Sadhana Upadhayay also submits that the respondent authorities have committed gross irregularities in allocating junior most in each batch and pay scale. It is noteworthy that the petitioners are not domicile and neither they have given any option of the State of Uttaranchal. The respondent authorities have selected batches arbitrarily inasmuch as, the respondent authorities have selected some employees from the batch 1977, 1978 & 1979 and the others from the batch 1982, 1985, 1989 thereby is not totally leaving some batches in between without any justification, which is not permissible and therefore the impugned allocating is liable to be quashed by this Court. It is also submitted that the action and conduct of the respondent authorities is contrary to the aims and objectives of development and social upliftment of the natives of the HILL REGION of State of Uttaranchal as preconceived by the -U. P. Reorganistion Act 2000". inasmuch as it is the inevitable requirement of the State of Uttaranchal to raise its own cadre from amongst the natives of Uttaranchal rather Uttaranchal cadre, and therefore the impugned allocation infringes Article 309 of the Constitution of India and is as such bad in law and liable to be quashed by this Court. It is further submitted that the State Government has committed hostile discrimination against various personnel on the basis of caste, creed and sex which is not permissible and is contrary to the "Constitutional Mandate of Equality In Matters of Public Employment", contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that as per the provision contained in order dated 13-9-2000 regarding allocation "provisional allocation is to be prepared keeping in view the preference of employee to be considered and to maintain balance within each cadre/category of posts vis-a-vis domicile status, and ethnic affinity etc. however, the Government has not disclosed as to how many employees are required in the new State. It is also incumbent upon the Government to prepare the allocation list in a comparative tabular manner vis-a-vis the requirement, name of the posts and domiciles etc. It should also be seen that no domicile is left out, and then to maintain the remaining vacancies and select junior most from the last batches as per the cut-off date which is 8-11-2000. In short it is submitted that the order dated 13-9-2000 is a formulated policy decision with regards to allocation of personnel. Provision No.3 (c) speaks of considering the preference of the employees. Guidelines No.3(d) speaks of maintaining balance in cadre/ categories; and guidelines No.3(e) speaks of including junior most personnel, in the list if there is any short fall. Provision No.4(a) provides for option forums for taking option from the employees. The action and conduct of the respondent authorities is highly mischievous and malicious inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the petitioner for making option before allocation and therefore the allocation is liable to be quashed. The petitioners who could not make representations be given some reasonable time to make the representation and submit the same within a reasonable time. The petitioners have placed reliance upon letters dated 1 August, 2000 & 29th August, 2001 in support of their contentions which have been written by the Inspector General of Police, and the Secretary, State of Uttaranchal respectively. These letters are as under : HINDI MATTER The letter dated 29-8-2001 is referred to by the Apex Court in the judgment of Civil Appeal No. 4281-4289/2003, State of Uttaranchal v. Siddhertha (AIR 2003 SC 4062) (supra) and is as under:- From: Rakesh Sharma Secretary Govt. of Uttaranchal. To. All the Principal Secretaries/Secretary, Govt. of Uttaranchal Personal Deptt. Dated : 29-8-2001 Subject : Action to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, U. P. for appointments in various departments. Sir. I have been directed to state that after constitution of the State of Uttaranchal, the Govt. of Utter Pradesh has sent the recommendations of the selected candidates by the Public Service Commission, U. P. Allahabad for appointment to the various posts in various departments of the Government of Uttaranchal. The said recommendations have been sent keeping in view the departmental constitution and reservation position of the earlier State of U. P.. whereas after constitution of the State of Uttaranchal the reservation policy has been changed. In such a situation there will be various miscellaneous legal difficulties in giving appointments to the candidates, list of which has been sent by the Govt. of U. P. in accordance with the recommendations. Therefore, in this regard after thorough consideration it has been decided that the candidates recommended by the U. P. Public Service Commission may not be appointed in various departments of the Govt. of Uttaranchal. Therefore it is requested to take further action accordingly. Yours Faithfully S/d Illegible (Rakesh Sharma) Secretary. Sri M. S. Negi, Advocate General, appearing on behalf of State of Uttaranchal has vehemently argued that the aforesaid letter fated 1-8-2002 and 29-8-2001 issued by the officers are misconceived and without any authority of law and that the officers can not override the provisions of law i.e. U. P. Reorganisation Act 2000. He submits that since the State of Uttaranchal is newly created and requires infrastructure and experienced employees. He states that there is requirement of experienced hands in service in the newly created State of Uttaranchal for providing future infrastructure which can only be made available to the Successor State i.e. Uttaranchal from- the existing employees of the State of U. P. under the Reorganisation Act-2000. He does not dispute the contention of the petitioner that the final allocation has to be done by the Central Govt. under the Reorganisation Act in consultation with Advisory Committee of the State of U. P. and Uttaranchal. It is also submitted that the Central Govt. has not undertaken exercise of deciding the objections of the employees and as such both the State are suffering. He submits that the State of U. P. is suffering by over staffing and State of Uttaranchal is suffering from lack of experienced employees due to which the State Govt. of Uttaranchal is failing difficulty in administration as the allocation of the post to the State of Uttaranchal is concerned. He states that the Central Government has been empowered to pass such allotment order under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act 2000 and the petitioners can only challenge the said allotment order, and make their grievance after the final allotment order is passed but at this stage no assertion can be made that it is the impugned order of tentative final allocation. It is also urged that the transfer of an employee cannot be equated under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act-2000 also with the power of the Parliamentary. The Parliament in its legislative exercise of power has empowered the Govt. of India to exercise the power of allotment of the employees under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act- 2000. It is further submitted that it is not a transfer from one employer to another employer. Under Article-3 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has power to form a new State and can alter the areas, boundaries of an existing state. The power of the parliament for allotment of the employees from one State to newly form State is an incidental power under Article -3 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the power exercised by the Central Govt. under Section 73 & 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act 2000 has no corelation with the transfer of employees and arguments on behalf of the petitioners that it will amount a transfer, is not correct. It is lastly submitted that the case cited by the petitioner relating to the transfer of an employee has no relevancy to the controversy involved in the present petition. The case of State of Uttaranchal v. Siddhartha Sri Vastava (AIR 2003 SC 4062) (supra) was a case regarding the selection made by the U. P. Public Service Commission before the appointed date or say before formation of Uttaranchal. It is submitted by Sri M. S. Negi that the Apex Court rightly held that such a selection made before the appointed date cannot be accepted by the State of Uttaranchal as the State of Uttaranchal have its own Uttaranchal Public Service Commission and the persons selected by the U. P. Public Service Commission cannot be appointed by the Uttaranchal State and vise-versa. So this case has also no relation with the power of the Central Government under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act-2000. Sri B. N. Singh appearing for the Central Govt. submits that there has been some delay in the matter of final allocation of the employees and the objection filed by them have not been decided by the Central Govt. as they are in very large number. He admits that a large number of employees have not been able to submit their representation due to reason that they have not been informed in time or for the reason that time was too short for them to make any specific representation. He submits that a direction can be issued to call for representation from such employees in general and for deciding the objections by the Central Govt. within time bound frame fixed by this Court. The impugned orders are not the final orders of allotment of the petitioners in the State of Uttaranchal. The final allotment orders of the employees from State of U. P. to State of Uttaranchal and vise-versa are to be passed by the Government of India under section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Re- organisation Act, 2000. Till today no final order in respect of these petitioners have been passed by the Central Government under section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act. 2000. In view of this fact, these petitions are premature and are liable to be dismissed as such. By means of the impugned orders, the employees were only asked to file the representation against their proposed allotment. And before passing the final order of the allotment, the representation of the employees, who are being affected by such allotment, were to be considered. Therefore the only remedy of the petitioners is to file their representation before the authorities concerned which shall be decided in accordance with law and various Govt. orders and guidelines, if the employees have any grievances regarding the procedure of the allotment or action of the Advisory Committee the same can be agitated by way of representations before Central Govt. If for some reason the employees who are effected were not able to move representations against allocation order in time, they do so as indicated above and Central Govt. will consider even such representations. Needless to say that the representations of the employees are to be decided by reasoned order and not on technical ground of delay. The State Government has correctly stated in their short counter affidavit that the writ petitions are premature and the impugned allocation list is a tentative list. The decision of the allocation of the employees of the State of U. P. to the newly created State of Uttaranchal cannot be decided by the State Government. The deicion has to be taken now by the Central Govt. in consultation /recommendation of the Advisory Committees of the States. There is no material on the basis of which it can be established that the petitioners have been discriminated on the basis of caste, cread and sex. The assertion appears to be misconceived. The allotment of the employees from State of U. P. to State of Uttaranchal and vise- versa is not a transfer, therefore, the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of transfer does not apply so far as the allocation of the post to the State of Uttaranchal is concerned. The Parliament in its wisdom has empowered the Government of India to exercise the power of allotment of the employees under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act-2000. The validity of these Sections have not been challenged by any of the petitioners in the present writ petitions. It is not transfer from one employer to another employer. Under Article -3 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament has power to form a new State and can also change the areas, boundaries of an existing State. The power of the Parliament for allotment of the employees from one State to newly form State is an incidental power under Article -3 of the Constitution of India. Thus, allocation under Section 73 and 74 of the U. P. State Reorganisation Act-2000 has no corelation with the transfer of employees and arguments on behalf of the petitioners that it will amount a transfer, is not correct. Before parting with the case it may be mentioned here that the controversy raised in this petition is covered by division bench judgment of this Court In Pushpak Jyoti v. State of U. P. 2004 (55) All LR 28 . The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Apex Court in special leave petition in which no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It would not be judicially proper for this court to decide the case on merits in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However in view of the admitted facts that petition is premature and that it will take some time in deciding the objection/representations by the Advisory Committee and the Central Govt. it would be expedient to issue direction to the Central Govt. to decide the representation within a time bound frame according to policy contained in guidelines for deciding the representations within time. More than 3 years has already passed. Any further delay would effect the employees who are in suspended animation. The employee cannot be kept in a state of suspended animation indefinitely. Taking these circumstances into consideration in totality, the petition is disposed of with direction that the effected employees who have not been able to file representation may file their representations within one month from today though their respective chief secretaries giving detailed reasons for consideration of their case. The representations of the each of the employee so received shall be forwarded to the Central Govt. by the State Advisory Committee within fifteen days of its receipt along with its recommendation. The Central Govt. within six weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendations shall decide representations by a reasoned order so as to ensure fair and equitable treatment if all the employees affected and proper consideration of their representations in accordance with the spirit of Section 76 (a) and (b) of the Reorganisation Act- 2000. The final allocation of the employee concerned shall be conveyed to the respective States who will convey the same to the effected employee within fifteen days thereafter of the receipt of final allocation list. The Advisory Committee as well as the Central Govt. will also look into the genuineness of hardship discrimination etc. and shall form their opinion in accordance with the guidelines and modalities already evolved contained in the various D Os. G. Os. etc. and in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Reorganisation Act-2000. Since due to laxity. Central Govt. the final allocation of the employees has been delayed and their representations have remained unactioned, it is directed that the Secretary. Govt. of India. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension. New Delhi shall file compliance reports pursuant to the judgment. The first compliance report shall be filed by 6th July 2004 informing about the progress i.e. the number of representations decided and the final allocation of the employees. The second report shall be subsequently filed on 6th August, 2004 and the final report be submitted by 7th October, 2004. The Registry of this Court is also directed to list the leading case on 6th July, 2004. 6th August, 2004 and 7th October, 2004. For the reasons stated above the writ petitions are premature and are disposed of with aforesaid directions at this' stage. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.;