Allowed

Girish Ram v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018WRIA/45750/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order allocating him to Uttarakhand cadre instead of staying in U.P. Pol. tranference. The court followed a precedent (Doharey) allowing employees to continue in their original state and quashed the allocation order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the order dated 21.8.2008 allocating the petitioner to Uttarakhand cadre was quashed.

Girish Ram Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45750 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Girish Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,A. S. G. I. /2008/1837,P. S. Baghel,Shashi Shekhar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Affidavit filed by Sri Subhranshu Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶7

The matter has been called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of petitioner to press this writ petition. The name of the counsel for the petitioner is reflected in the cause list. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present.

¶8

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the matter relates to transfer of the petitioner from U.P. Police to the State of Uttarakhand cadre. The case of the petitioner is covered by the judgement of this court rendered in the case of Jagdish Narayan Doharey Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad) reported at 2015(8) ADJ 78 .

¶9

The petitioner was posted as Head Operator (Mechanical) in the office of the Radio Branch, U.P. Police, District Azamgarh and were allocated the Uttarakhand cadre upon its creation.

¶10

The petitioner has assailed the order allocating him to the Uttarakhand cadre and relieving him from the State of U.P., in the instant writ petition.

¶11

The matter relating to transfer of employees from State of U.P. to Uttarakhand upon allocation of the cadre was decided by this court in the case of Jagdish Narayan Doharey Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad) reported at 2015(8) ADJ 78 . The extracts of the judgement which are relevant

¶12

¶13

are reproduced herein below :-

¶14

“4. The petitioners are serving on Class-III and IV posts in different departments of the State Government.

¶15

Shri U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General has made a categorical statement that the State of Uttrakhand has agreed to the extent that in lieu of 3000 posts, the concerned departments have already proceeded for their own recruitment and either they have completed the recruitment process or the process of recruitment is under progress.

¶16

Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate General has also made a statement to the effect that the Government of UP has taken a decision that the employees, who are working in the State of UP for last so many years, will continue to work in the State of UP.

¶17

Shri Ashok Mehta, Additional Solicitor General of India states that as per provisions of the Act, the Central Government has already given time schedule and it is upto the both States to act upon as per the time schedule.

¶18

Alongwith the modified guidelines dated 27.3.2015, the aforesaid time schedule has been provided but the same has not been implemented. Accordingly, this Court modifies the said time scheduled, as under:-

¶19

dz0la0	dkjZokbZ dh izfdz;k	le;&lhek
1	fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dks vafre :Ik nsuk	15.06.2015
2	fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dks vf/klwfpr djuk	30.06.2015
3	fodYi izkIr djus dh vafre frfFk	31.07.2015
4	fodYiksa dh tkap djuk	15.08.2015
5	jkT; ds ,lvkj izHkkx }kjk lykgdkj lfefr dks izLrko lkSaiuk	21.08.2015
6	lykgdkj lfefr }kjk flQkfj'kksa dh tkap djuk	1.09.2015
7	sdkfeZd vkSj izf"k{k.k foHkkx dks izLrko lkSaiuk	08.09.2015
8	dsUnz ljdkj dk vuqeksnu	23.09.2015

¶20

¶21

Once both the State Governments have agreed that those Class-III and IV employees, who were allocated to Uttrakhand against their options and have not complied with the allocation orders, are still continuing on the basis of interim orders of this Court, their allocation to Uttrakhand should be cancelled and they be allocated to the State where they are presently working, and once concurrence has taken place between the parties, then at this stage it would not be appropriate to displace the persons from one State and send to another State. It is also apparent from the record that in most of the cases the interim orders are operating and the petitioners are working in the departments with utmost their satisfaction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that at this stage, they may not be shifted to the State of Uttrakhand.

¶22

In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed as per the time schedule indicated as above.”

¶23

The petitioner is entitled to continue as Head Operator (Mechanical) in the State of U.P. in view of the law laid down by this court in the case of Jagdish Narayan Doharey (Supra). The order dated 21.8.2008 passed by respondent no.9 is quashed.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.9.2018 Pramod

Girish Ram v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Ram v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chunni Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Wahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sri Krishna Yadav Vs Union of India and Others

Smt. Neelu Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Subhash Vs State of U.P. and Others