Ganesh Chandra Joshi vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Uttar Pradesh Van Vikas Nigam Limited is one of the Government Companies mentioned in IX Schedule to the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. All the Government companies mentioned in the said schedule were required to be dealt with in terms of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Act. In terms of Section 66 of the Act, it was open to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttarakhand to agree to do things pertaining to the said company. It appears that Respondent No. 7, who was an employee of the said company was agreed to be parted by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttarakhand along with 8 other employees of the said company. The State of Uttarakhand, however, did not agree to take Respondent No. 7. There was no agreement inter se the States pertaining to Respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

It is not in dispute that as yet neither it has been agreed between the said two States nor there is any direction by the Central Government in terms of Section 66 of the Act to bifurcate the said company into two. At the same time, there is nothing on record from where it would be evident that any decision was taken to wind up the said company. Accordingly, it should be deemed in accordance with the mandate of Section 66 of the Act that the said company is still functioning.

The State of Uttarakhand created an agency, legal status whereof is that of a registered society, for the purpose of doing works akin to the works that the said company is doing. It appears that the wife of Respondent No. 8 wrote a letter that Respondent No. 8 is a very competent person and accepting the views thus expressed, Respondent No. 8 has been appointed in the said agency. Similarly, though the State of Uttarakhand did not opt to take Respondent No. 7 as an employee of the State of Uttarakhand, the said Respondent too has been appointed as an employee of the said agency. Respondent No. 9 who is an employee of the said company has also been appointed in the said agency. In so far as Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, who were admittedly employees of the said company, there is no agreement between the States. So far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned, though there is an agreement between the States, but the State of Uttarakhand has not opted to accept the said Respondent as an employee of the State of Uttarakhand. That being the situation, though it was open to the State of Uttarakhand to give Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 fresh employment in the agency but they could not, in the absence of law made by them, to continue the employment of Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the said company in the said agency. The State Government has not been able to bring on record any law made by it, by which it can continue employment of an employee of the said company in any agency of the State. That being the situation, Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 shall either be repatriated to their parent organisation or they should be deemed to have been appointed afresh from the date they were thus appointed in the agency. The above directions be implemented as quickly as possible but not later than two months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the agency.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.