Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 536 (UTT)

I. P. Sharma v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-12-21

CYRIAC JOSEPH, IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT Hon. Cyriac Joseph, C.J. Hon. Irshad Hussain, J. Cyriac Joseph, C.J. (Oral) : 1. The petitioners are officiating Deputy Directors in the Ayurveda and Unani Department of the Government of Uttaranchal. They were employees of the erstwhile State of U.P On bifurcation of the State of U.P. and creation of the State of Uttaranchal, the petitioners opted for the State of Uttaranchal. But the names of the petitioners are not included in the Final Allocation list of officials allotted to the State of Uttaranchal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner is due to retire from service on superannuation on 28.02.06 and the second petitioner is due to retire from service on superannuation on 31.08.07. It is contended that there is no justification for excluding the names of the petitioners from the Final Allocation List of officers allotted to the State of Uttaranchal Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners may be permitted to make representations to the sixth respondents against the exclusion of their names from the Final Allocation list and the sixth respondent may be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on such representations and till the disposal of the representations, the petitioners may not be relieved from the services of the Government of Uttaranchal. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that many posts of Ayurveda Doctors are lying vacant in the State of Uttaranchal and that there is need for many Ayurveda Doctors in the State of Uttaranchal. 3. We have heard Mr. J.B Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing counsel the. State of Uttaranchal who accepted notice for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing counsel (Central Govt.) who accepted notice for respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. S.P.S. Panwar, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. who accepted notice for respondents Nos. 7,8 and 9. 4. Having heard• learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to make representations to the sixth respondent and till the disposal of the representations, they should be allowed to continue in the service of the Government of Uttaranchal. 5. 4. Having heard• learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to make representations to the sixth respondent and till the disposal of the representations, they should be allowed to continue in the service of the Government of Uttaranchal. 5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners make representations to the sixth respondent within two weeks from today in respect of their claim for allotment to the State of Uttaranchal, the sixth respondent shall consider such representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any• rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representations. Till the representations are disposed of by the sixth respondent, the petitioners shall not be relieved from the service of the Government of Uttaranchal. If the petitioners fail to make the representations within two weeks as directed above, the above directions shall stand recalled.