Balak Ram vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Triloki Singh on behalf of Respondents.

The impugned order is a consequential order relieving the Petitioner directing him to join the State of Uttranchal pursuant to the allocation of the Petitioner to the State of Uttranchal under the U.P. State Re-organisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act 2000'').

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised two submissions. He says that firstly the persons junior to the Petitioner have been retained in the State of U.P. while Petitioner has been allocated to the State of Uttrakhand (Uttaranchal) though as per the guide-lines laid down by the State Government a committee was constituted for allocation of the employee to the State of U.P and Uttranchal and it was decided that the junior most persons shall be allocated to the State of Uttranchal. He further submitted that some of the employees who belong to the places which are now within the territory of the State of Uttraranchal have been retained in U.P. but the Petitioner has been allocated to the State of Uttranchal. He further submits that Petitioner is not surplus since large number of vacancies are existing in the State of U.P. and therefore, the Petitioner ought not to have been allocated to the Uttranchal lastly. He says that Petitioner is in his advanced age and at this stage, they ought not to be allocated to the State of Uttranchal, since it would disturb the entire family of the Petitioner particularly where permanent residence of the Petitioner is located in the State of U.P.

The learned Standing Counsel however, submitted that the final allocation was made in the year 2007 by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2000 but despite of such allocation wherein the Petitioner was allocated to the State of Uttranchal, the same was not implemented by the authorities in the State of U.P. and it is only when the instructions have been issued by the higher authorities, various letters were issued directing field authorities to implement the said allocation and relieve the officials who have been allocated to the State of Uttranchal without any further delay, the impugned relieving orders have been passed relieving the Petitioner from the State of U.P. and enabling them to join in the State of Uttranchal. He further submitted that all aspects in the matter of allocation of Uttranchal raised in this case also came to be considered before this Court in writ petition No. 4624 of 2009 (Sanjay Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) connected with other several writ petitions which have been considered and decided by a detailed judgment dated 30.7.2009, by an Hon''ble Single Judge and his Lordship found that every aspect have been considered by the authorities concerned and have no interference is called for. It is also pointed out of that in one of the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 13652 of 2009 (Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.) which was decided by this Court by learned Single Judge on 30.7.2009, thereagainst Special Appeal No. 1052(D) of 2009 was filed but the same has also been dismissed by the Hon''ble Division Bench on 9.10.2009 holding that it is according to a policy decision which does not call for any interference.

However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submit that arguments which are raised in the present writ petition were not raised in the earlier matters and therefore, this case is different and needs to be considered on merits by this Court. He further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No. 661 of 2009 decided on 5.10.2009 whereby another judgment of the Hon''ble Single Judge at Lucknow passed on 7.9.2009 in the matter of allocation of State of Uttranchal has been set aside by the Division Bench and the matter has been remitted to the learned Single Judge. He therefore, submits that this matter is also covered by the said decision of the Division Bench dated 15.10.2009 (R.K. Pandey v. Union of India and others).

6.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. From the judgment dated 30.7.2009 of the Hon''ble Single Judge (Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.) in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra), I find that the Hon''ble Court has considered the principles for allocation of persons to Uttranchal as were accepted by the Respondents which are quoted in para 8 of the judgment as under:

Eight principles for allocation of personnel to Uttranchal suggested by the Chief Secretary of U.P. were accepted:

The first of the allotted will be optees to Uttranchal. 2. Those whose home district as declared in service records lies within Uttranchal, will be allotted to that State.

If the vacancies persists, the junior most as on the appointed day in the desired pay scale would be allotted.

While carrying out the exercise care would be taken to observe the criteria regarding reservation of S Cs/S Ts/OB Cs and others. Care would also be taken to allocate personnel pro rata according to the total strength of the batch, as far as possible.

If both husband and wife are in service, allotment would be in accordance with the option of the senior with reference to the pay scale. In case of officers finally allotted to Uttranchal vide Government of India''s order dated 11.9.2001, the spouse would be allotted Uttranchal only, and not Uttar Pradesh.

Female employees would be allocated according to their options, subject to the condition that those whose spouses are covered by point 2 or point 3 would be allotted Uttranchal only, and nor Uttar Pradesh.

Those employees, who are due to retire within two years will be allotted as per their option.

Handicapped employees, if not finally allotted to Uttranchal vide orders dated 11.9.2001, issued by Government of India would be allotted as per their options.

There was consensus on the adoption of these norms to govern the allocation of personnel.

A perusal of the said criteria shows that the criteria Nos. 1 to 3 were not absolute and conclusive but they were subject to later factors contained in criteria in 4, 5,6,7 and 8. Unless and until it is shown that from every aspect of the matter it is evident that the said policy has not been followed, it is impermissible to say that since one of the criteria has not been adhered to strictly in words and spirit without any reference to other criteria, and on the basis thereof the action of the Respondents is bad. In the absence thereof, mere averment that principle No. 3 has not been followed strictly would not help the Petitioner at all. Similarly with respect to the persons who belong to the places which are now in the State of Uttranchal i.e covered by the Principle No. 2 since principle No. 2 again has to be considered along with Principle Nos. 4 to 8 and unless a cumulative and harmonious application thereof is not demonstrated to have been not followed on the part of the Respondents, no interference is called for. Allocation of State as a result of re-organisation is a complicated tedious work which involves multifarious factors to be considered while allocating the persons, the already existing State or the newly created State. It cannot be said that only junior most would be sent to the newly created State since the same would be against the interest of the administration as newly created State also require benefit of experienced and senior persons. Therefore, a proper balance has to be maintained in this regard and in that view of the matter it has been mentioned so in principle No. 4 as quoted above.

So far as the question that the Petitioner is not surplus or that there are large number of vacancies in the State of U.P., the same is wholly irrelevant for the reasons that allocation ought to have been on the date of creation of the newly created State and a vacancies occurred thereafter can not be taken into consideration for such purpose. Even otherwise if it is not a relevant criteria for making allocation under the provisions of the Act, or the principles as accepted by the authorities to be observed in making allocation. In my view, the matter of allocation to the State of Uttranchal from the erstwhile State of U.P. is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) which has been confirmed in Intra court appeal by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 9.10.2009, Mahendra Singh (supra) and learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not show any decision of this Court taking a different view in this matter.

So far as the judgment of the Lucknow Bench is concerned a perusal of the order shows that the learned Single Judge initially passed a limited stay order while entertaining the writ petition on certain aspects of the matter but thereafter the writ petitions were dismissed in limine without any detailed counter affidavit filed by the State of Uttranchal or other Respondents. The Division Bench in R.K. Pandey (supra) found that certain aspects were raised in the writ petition but were not considered by the Hon''ble Single Judge. It is not the case in hand. Further it does not appear from the record that the detailed judgment of this Court passed on 30.7.2009 in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) and was considered by the learned Single Judge at Lucknow Bench in its judgment dated 7.9.2009. The Hon''ble Division Bench in R.K. Pandey (Supra) found that the learned Single Judge has not considered several issues raised before him and therefore, remanded the matter. The said order therefore, is confined to the facts involved in those cases and does not lay down a general law with respect to principles of allocation which have already been considered by this Court in Mahendra Singh (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Singh (Supra) which are binding on this Court also.

In view of the above discussion and also for the reasons contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra); Mahendra Singh (supra). I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.