Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 290 (UTT)

Sri Babu Ram Sharma v. Union of India

2007-05-22

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Smt. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for respondents 1 and 2 Sri Lalit Sharma, Brief Holder for respondents 3 to 5 Smt. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel (UP. Government) for respondent 6. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Babu Ram Sharma has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ, rule order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 11-05-2006 (Annexure-I) passed by respondent no. 1 so far as relates to petitioner and the order dated 17-5-2007 (Annexure No.1 A) passed by the respondent no. 5. (b) Issue a writ, rule order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of petitioner as Assistant Engineer, Lakhwar Bandh Nirman Khand-1, Dakpathar Dehradun pursuant to impugned order dated 11-05-2006. (c) Issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the order dated 11-05-2006 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been finally allocated to the State of U.P. and the order dated 17-05-2007 (Annexure 1 A) whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the State of Uttaranchal for his joining to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 4. Petitioner Babu Ram Sharma, who is working as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department admittedly opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh before the reorganization of the State in the year 2000. The Central Government vide impugned order dated 11-05-2006 (Annexure-1) has finally allocated the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner stands relieved from the State of Uttarachal for his joining to the State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 17-05-2007 (Annexure 1 A). 5. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner's case ought to have been considered by the respondents for his mutual transfer from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttaranchal as the State of Uttaranchal has no objection to the petitioner's transfer from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttranchal. The learned counsel further submitted that the Central Government has erred in not giving due weight to the petitioner's revised option for the State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand. 6. The petitioner stands finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh by the Central Government in accordance with his option. The petitioner's final allocation to the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be found fault with merely because his revised option is not accepted by the Central Government. 7. So far as the petitioner's claim for mutual transfer is concerned, we are of the opinion that mere consent of the State of Uttaranchal does not create any right in favour of the petitioner for his transfer from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of Uttaranchal. This apart, the petitioner's claim for mutual transfer is not enforceable in the Court of law as it is entirely between the two states to agree or not to agree for the petitioner's mutual transfer and Courts have no role to play in such matters. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground for grant of the releifs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. 9. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.