Sunil Pawar and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Petitioners were employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, similarly Respondent No. 4 was also an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Being employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, some of the Petitioners opted to become members of the Hill Sub Cadre and remaining of them were appointed in the Hill Sub Cadre. Respondent No. 4 was not a member of the Hill Sub Cadre. On 9th November, 2000 by carving out a portion of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttarakhand was established. In terms of the Act by which the State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganized, all the employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh became provisional employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, except those who had been taken as provisional employees of the State of Uttarakhand by reason of direction to that effect issued by the Central Government. The Central Government was asked to allocate those employees to the State of Uttar Pradesh and to the State of Uttarakhand. On 11th September, 2001 the Central Government issued an order and thereby, provided that who ever was a part and parcel to Hill Sub Cadre, would stand allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. In that view of the matter, Petitioners stood allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. At this juncture, it must be kept in mind that on and from the date, the State of Uttarakhand was created, the Hill Sub Cadre of the State of Uttar Pradesh stood abolished. Therefore, the members of the erstwhile Hill Sub Cadre of the State of Uttar Pradesh, who were allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, became part of the general cadre of the State of Uttarakhand on and from their allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. By an order dated 18th May, 2006, the Central Government finally allocated Respondent No. 4 to the State of Uttarakhand. On being so allocated, Respondent No. 4 too, became a part and parcel of the general cadre of the State of Uttarakhand. In terms of the law adopted or framed by the State of Uttarakhand, the seniority of members of the cadre is to be determined from the date of their original 47substantive appointments. In such view of the matter, Respondent No. 4 having been appointed substantively before the Petitioners, Respondent No. 4 on being allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, would be senior to the Petitioners. It appears that on 29th June, 2006 the Central Government passed an order and thereby, indicated that its decision dated 18th May, 2006 allocating Respondent No. 4 to the State of Uttarakhand, requires a review. It, therefore, decided to give notice of such review to the State Governments as well as the parties likely to be affected. In the present writ petition, it is being contended that Petitioners became entitled to notice, inasmuch as, the decision dated 18th May, 2006 is likely to affect them. There is no substance in the said contention. The decision dated 18th May, 2006 did not at all touch any of the Petitioners even with a barge pole. The said decision was in respect of Respondent No. 4. The said decision was in contemplation of review. For that notice was decided to be given to the person likely to be affected. The one and the only person who could be affected by review of the said order dated 18th May, 2006, was and could only be Respondent No. 4 and no one else.

It appears that the review as was contemplated in the order dated 29th June, 2006 did not take place but a Sub Committee after hearing Respondent No. 4 by an order dated 8th April, 2008 reaffirmed the final allocation made in favour of Respondent No. 4 on 18th May, 2006. Petitioners are contending that the order dated 8th April, 2008 having been passed without notice to them, should be deemed to have been passed, without following the law, known as Audi Alteram Partem. We reaffirm that in the matter of allocation of an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttarakhand, another employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh never had nor has and never to have acquired any right to interfere. In the matter of such allocation, the law is clear that the allocation should be made by ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all persons affected by the allocation, namely, the allocation should be made so that the allottee is not affected and in the matter of such allocation equitable and fair treatment is expected for all persons to be allocated. By reading "ensuring of fair and equitable treatment of all persons affected" as occurring in Clause (b) of Section 76 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, it cannot be contended that a person who has been allocated to the State of Uttaranchal and is not aggrieved by said allotment, can contend that allotment of another person to the State of Uttarakhand is either inequitable or unfair to him.

For the reason already indicated above, we hold that there was no decision of the Central Government contained in its order dated 29th June, 2006 to give any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and in law there was and is no such requirement and, accordingly, contention of the Petitioners that the order dated 8th April, 2008 has been passed without hearing them is of no substance.

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed, accordingly.