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
2 paragraphs · 259 wordsBarin Ghosh, C.J.—At the time of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner was an ad hoc employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since he was such an ad hoc employee, his status continued to remain the same after creation of the State of Uttarakhand. The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, by which State of Uttarakhand was created, did not provide for allocation of ad hoc employees of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner, therefore, could not be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand in terms of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. Subsequent to creation of the State of Uttarakhand, petitioner continued to discharge duties in the hospitals situated in the territory of the State of Uttarakhand and managed and administered by the State of Uttarakhand. However, in 2005, the ad hoc employment of the petitioner has been converted by the State of Uttar Pradesh as a regular employment. In the circumstances, petitioner remained and continues to remain an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, his request for relieving him in order to enable him to serve the State of Uttar Pradesh ought to have had been acceded to long time back.
We, accordingly, allow the writ petition with a direction upon respondent No. 2 to relieve the petitioner, in order to enable him to join the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as quickly as possible, but not later than one month from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the said respondent.
