Allowed

R.D Tiwari v. State and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC6 Jul 2006WPSB/196/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A welfare officer challenged his final allocation to Uttaranchal, seeking writ relief to serve in Uttaranchal despite a government order allocating him to Uttaranchal. Disregarding this procedure, the Court held the petitioner was finally allocated to Uttaranchal and directed his transfer to Uttaranchal, allowing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner for the State of Uttaranchal within one month of production of the copy of this order.

R.D Tiwari Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

¶2

Interim relief Application No. 8224/06

¶3

¶4

Writ Petition No. 196(S/B) of 2006

¶5

Dr. R.D. Tiwari, S/o Sri J.P. Tiwari, Permanent resident of Village Devaria, Post Office Baraunsa, District – Sultanpur, At present – Surgeon, Govind Singh Mehra Government, Hospital, Ranikhet, District – Almora ….Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Health

¶8

And Family Welfare Services, Dehradun.

¶9

Director General of Medical Health and Family,

¶10

Welfare Services, Dehradun.

¶11

Chief Medical Officer, Almora.

¶12

State of U.P., through Principal Secretary,

¶13

Health and family Welfare Services Lucknow. ……Respondents

¶14

Sri Vijay Bhatt learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

Sri Arvind Vashistha learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.6 and 7. Sri S.P.S. Panwar learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel For the respondent No. 4 and 5.

¶16

Sri K.P. Upadhaya learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶17

Dated: - 06-07-2006

¶18

Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma,J Hon’ble B.S. Verma,J

¶19

Heard Sri Vijay Bhatt learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashistha learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent Nos.6 and 7, Sri S.P.S. Panwar learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 and 5 and Sri K.P. Upadhaya learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to relieve the petitioner for the State of U.P. Petitioner is a member of Provincial Medical and Health Services holding the post of Senior Medical Officer. After the reorganization from the appointed day,

¶21

¶22

the petitioner has been working in State of Uttaranchal by virtue under section 75 of the U.P. Re-organization Act.

¶23

The petitioner’s final allocation was pending before the Government of India under Section 73(2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act. The Government of India has passed an order Number 39/05 in September 2005 allowing member of Provincial Medical services to the Uttaranchal and State of U.P. This Government order contains the list of the members whose names figure in the list having been allocation to the Uttaranchal and it has been further provided that the members whose name does not fine place in the list are finally allocated to state of U.P.

¶24

We have perused the list contained that the Government order and the name of the petitioner find in the list. Therefore, the petitioner is not allocated to the State of Uttaranchal but he is finally allocated to the State of U.P. by virtue of the State government order which states that the candidates whose name do not find in the list or finally allocated in the State of U.P. Thus, the petitioner has finally allocated to the State of U.P.

¶25

Since the petitioner is finally allocated to the State of U.P. therefore the respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner for the state of U.P. within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶27

¶28

06-07-2006

R.D Tiwari v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.D Tiwari v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Gyan Babu Kesri Vs State and Ors.

Ms. Vinay Kumari Raghav Vs U.A. Public Service Commission and Ors.

Smt. Bina Kumari and Ors. Vs Sanjay Kumar Ayngra

Lalita Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Girish Chandra Lohni Vs State and Ors.

Vikram Singh Tomar Vs State and Ors.