CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Atik Ahmad Khan & another vs Smt. Simmi Khan

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 July 2018 · Citation: (2018) 07 UK CK 0025

HON’BLE JUDGES
MANOJ K. TIWARI, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 7, Order 43 Rule 1(s)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Appeal From Order No. 239 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 346 words

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL)

1.

We are not inclined to admit this writ petition. Petitioner and petitioner’s husband both were employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. By

reason of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, on and from the date of coming into force of the said Act, they became provisional employees

of the State of Uttar Pradesh. They were asked to exercise their option to choose in between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of

Uttarakhand. Both of them chose State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequent thereto, husband of the petitioner died. Petitioner has been allocated in terms of

her option to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In as much as her husband died, petitioner made a representation that she be permitted to alter her allocation

and she be permitted to remain in the State of Uttarakhand. This representation is pending consideration before the Central Government. In the

meantime, petitioner has been relieved by the State of Uttarakhand, in order to enable the petitioner to join the State of Uttar Pradesh.

2.

In the present writ petition, petitioner is contending that until such time the representation of the petitioner is considered, she be permitted to stay in

the State of Uttarakhand. In law, if, on the basis of the representation, petitioner can be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, then, of course, until

such time the representation of the petitioner is decided, petitioner should be permitted to stay in the State of Uttarakhand where she is presently

staying. However, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that after the Central Government has passed a final allocation order, Central

Government becomes functus officio. It has no power to review the order of allocation already made by it, in as much as no such power has been

granted by the Act and at the same time, by reason of the provisions of the Act, in the matter of allocation, the Central Government discharges quasi-

judicial functions.

3.

In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.