Smt. Neelam vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—According to the Petitioner, she opted for the State of Uttarakhand, when, by carving out a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttarakhand was created. Petitioner, however, has not been able to substantiate the said contention by producing any contemporary document. Respondents have contended that the Petitioner opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The fact remains that before creation of the State of Uttarakhand, Petitioner was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. By reason of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, Petitioner became a provisional employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. She was to be allocated to either of the States by the Central Government. The Central Government prepared a tentative allocation list of people similar to that of the Petitioner and therein indicated that the Petitioner stands allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequent thereto, in 2006 the Central Government finalized the allocation list of people similar to that of the Petitioner and thereby allocated the Petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Despite such allocation, Petitioner was not relieved by the State of Uttarakhand, where she was working until the final allocation was made. Petitioner was continuing to serve the State of Uttarakhand. In 2008, State of Uttarakhand promoted the Petitioner to the next higher post by selecting her as a suitable candidate entitled to be promoted on the said post through a regularly held Departmental Promotion Committee. In that view of the matter, the status of the Petitioner was altered by the State of Uttarakhand, although Petitioner was never an employee of the State of Uttarakhand either as a provisional employee on the basis of directions of the Central Government in terms of the said Act or on the basis of final allocation.

Subsequent thereto, Petitioner has been relieved by the State of Uttarakhand in order to enable her to join her duties in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State of Uttar Pradesh has not altered the status of the Petitioner; she has not been accorded promotion by the said State. In the premises, having had altered the status of the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to enjoy the altered status for more than two years, Petitioner has been sought to be relieved entailing her to obtain a position in the State of Uttar Pradesh with a lower status. Unless the State of Uttarakhand can ensure making available to the Petitioner the same status, which the Petitioner is presently holding in the State of Uttarakhand, in the State of Uttar Pradesh on being relieved by the State of Uttarakhand, it would not be appropriate on the part of the State of Uttarakhand to relieve the Petitioner.

We, accordingly, set aside the order relieving the Petitioner by preserving the liberty to the State of Uttarakhand to relieve the Petitioner in future provided it can ensure that the Petitioner would be given same status as that of what she is holding in the State of Uttarakhand today.

This disposes of the writ petition.