ORDER R.K. Gupta, J. 1. As the common question of fact and law is involved in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P. No. 13660/2008 (S) the petitioner-State of Madhya Pradesh has called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 23-10-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") in O.A. No. 518/2008 (Vinay Shukla vs. State of M.P. and another) whereby the application of the first respondent, Vinay Shukla, has been allowed with a direction to the petitioner-State Government to implement the Notification dated 24-8-2007 as well as directive issued on 15-1-2008. 3. In the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing No. 15122 of 2008 (S) the State has prayed for quashment of the order dated 28-9-2007 (Annexure P-12) whereby the Central Government had requested the petitioner to implement its decision for change of allocation of Mr. Vinay Shukla from Chhattisgarh Cadre to Madhya Pradesh Cadre. The petitioner has also challenged the Notification dated 24-8-2007 (Annexure P-7) whereby the second respondent, Vinay Shukla, has been directed to be reallocated from Chhattisgarh Cadre to Madhya Pradesh Cadre. 4. In W.P. No. 982/2009 (S), the petitioner, Vinay Shukla, who is respondent in the aforesaid two writ petitions, has prayed for a direction to the State of Madhya Pradesh to compensate the petitioner adequately and appropriately holding that the change of his cadre from his home State of M.P. to the newly created State of Chhattisgarh on 31-10-2000 (Annexure P/6) was void ab initio as noticed in the GOI Notification dated 24-8-2007. Be it noted, the original applicant, Mr. Vinay Shukla, had approached the Tribunal in connection with his grievance that despite the orders of the Central Government issued vide Notification dated 24-8-2007 as well as Advisory Communication dated 15-2-2008 the State Government of Madhya Pradesh was not giving effect to the same to join him in the State of Madhya Pradesh after his reallocation from Chhattisgarh Cadre to the M.P. Cadre and the Tribunal has allowed the said original application vide order dated 23-10-2008. The original applicant though had sought for review of the same but the same has also been rejected. The original applicant though had sought for review of the same but the same has also been rejected. However, State of Madhya Pradesh has moved this Court against the order of the tribunal dated 23-10-2008, which also forms the subject matter in aforesaid two writ petitions preferred by the State of M.P. Therefore, these writ petitions were heard and are disposed of by this singular order. 5. For the sake of convenience, the factual matrix of the case is obtained from the W.P.No. 13660/2008 (S). In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, Vinay Shukla, an IAS Officer of 1974 Batch was allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh as an insider candidate. On reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, he was allocated to the Cadre of Chhattisgarh in November, 2000 and was relieved from the post of Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior, which he was officiating, on 28-11-2000. He was directed to join the allocated cadre of Chhattisgarh on or before 30th November, 2000. The respondent No. 1 submitted a representation against the said allocation of cadre, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, a review application was followed by representation dated 18th April, 2007 after discovery of fraud and forgery of documents dated 7-4-1977. The matter was placed before the competent authority in the Central Government i.e. (ACC) which approved the proposal of re-allocation from Chhattisgarh Cadre to the M.P. Cadre. Pursuant thereto, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training issued a Notification on 24-8-2007. After receiving the Notification dated 24-8-2007, the State raised objection through GAD vide letter dated 10-9-2007 (Annexure P-7) which was followed by another letter dated 18-9-2007 (Annexure P-8) clearly mentioning therein that the reallocation of the respondent No. 1 was not in conformity with the policy laid down by the Central Government vide OM dated 8-9-2004. A further objection was raised that after rejection of representation of the respondent No. 1 by the Advisory Committee and on his final allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh, the respondent No. 1 cannot be reallocated to the M.P. Cadre after a lapse of seven years and that too without the consent of the State Government. A further objection was raised that after rejection of representation of the respondent No. 1 by the Advisory Committee and on his final allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh, the respondent No. 1 cannot be reallocated to the M.P. Cadre after a lapse of seven years and that too without the consent of the State Government. Since the Notification issued by the Central Government on 24-8-2007 was not given effect to, the respondent No. 1 submitted representations to the Chief Secretary, State of M.P. on 10-12-2007 as well as to the respondent No. 2 on 8-1-2008. Ultimately, vide letter dated 15-2-2008 the Central Government intimated the petitioner-State that the decision of reallocation of respondent No. 1 to the M.P. Cadre has been approved by the Central Government at a higher level, therefore, a request was made to accept the joining of the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, it appears that State Government again on 31-3-2008 (Annexure P-16) requested the Central Government to reconsider the Notification of reallocation and to withdraw the same. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 approached the tribunal by filing in Original Application No. 518/2008 raising a grievance that despite Central Government Notification dated 24-8-2007 as well as 15-2-2008, the petitioner-State has not implemented the same and has failed to comply with orders and directions issued by the Central Government. As mentioned earlier, the Tribunal vide its order dated 23-10-2008 has allowed the said original application in favour of the present respondent No. 1, against which the petitioner-State of Madhya Pradesh has moved this Court by filing aforesaid two writ petitions. 6. On behalf of the State Government it is contended that the order passed by the Central Government acceptance of the representation of the original applicant, Vinay Shukla, is illegal and the Central Government is not justified in passing the order by way of Notification dated 24-8-2007 wherein allocation of respondent No. 1 from the State of M.P. to the State of Chhattisgarh has been cancelled and he has been directed to be reallocated within the State of M.P. 7. As is evident, the tribunal has recorded the reasons in paragraphs 12 and 14 of its order wherein it has come to the conclusion that proper facts were not brought to the notice of the Central Government by the State Government and the State Government had misguided the Central Government. As is evident, the tribunal has recorded the reasons in paragraphs 12 and 14 of its order wherein it has come to the conclusion that proper facts were not brought to the notice of the Central Government by the State Government and the State Government had misguided the Central Government. The tribunal has further come to the conclusion that in the descriptive roll dated 20th July, 1974 of the original applicant his home address was shown to be at Rewa though the descriptive roll which was submitted by the State Government to the Central Government was showing his home town at Bilaspur and on that misrepresentation of fact the Central Government had passed the earlier order of allocation and subsequently when representation was submitted by the original applicant giving correct facts and descriptive roll was also called for, the Central Government further found that the descriptive roll was unauthenticated by the Cabinet Secretary wherein home town was shown to be at Rewa at the time of entry and not Bilaspur and on that basis the Central Government had come to the conclusion that mistake which was earlier committed because of misrepresentation required to be corrected and accordingly same has been corrected by reallocating the respondent No. 1, the original applicant before the tribunal, on the basis of entries made in the descriptive roll and finding has been recorded by the Central Government that, the home town of the respondent No. 1 is in the State of Madhya Pradesh and accordingly has directed for reallocation. 8. There is no dispute that allocation was to be made on the basis of directives and guidelines issued by the Central Government with regard to allocation of the employees. Relevant service book has been filed by the respondent along with reply submitted by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt, of India, North Block, New Delhi and along with the same a document has been filed which shows that home town of the original applicant is at Rewa and not Bilaspur. Relevant service book has been filed by the respondent along with reply submitted by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt, of India, North Block, New Delhi and along with the same a document has been filed which shows that home town of the original applicant is at Rewa and not Bilaspur. Directives issued by the Central Government with regard to policy of the allocation have also been filed from which it is evident that the allocation at the first instance is to be made on the basis of home town and then option and if there is a fall short then the rule of bottom seniority has to be applied for the purposes of allocation to meet out the ratio of allocation with reference to various personnel. 9. In the present case, the original applicant was directed to be reallocated merely on the ground that his home town was shown to be at Bilaspur. He represented and ultimately after verification of the document by Central Government it was found that his home town is not at Bilaspur which is within the new State of Chhattisgarh but is in the District Rewa which is in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On the basis of the same, it is very difficult to accept the submission put forth on behalf of the State that since the respondent No. 1 was allocated to the new State of Chhattisgarh, the Central Government has no power to change the said order of allocation. 10. Yet another aspect, which would be relevant to be adverted to, is that section 71 of the M.P. State Reorganization Act, 2000 (for short "the 2000 Act") provides for the appointment of the Advisory Committee by the Central Government to assist the Central Government for the discharge of its functions under the said Part wherein section 71 is included and also for ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of the said Part, and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons. Section 72 of the 2000 Act further provides for the power of Central Government to give directions which envisages that the Central Government may, give such directions to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State Government of Chhattisgarh as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Part and the State Government shall comply with such directions. In this reference, it is seen that the representation which was initially submitted by the original applicant against his allocation to the cadre of Chhattisgarh was, in fact, a statutory representation as provided under section 71 of the 2000 Act and after verification of the same the Central Government had come to the conclusion that initial allocation of the respondent No. 1 was based upon misrepresentation of fact and that the facts were not correctly brought to the notice of the Central Government resulting into wrong and illegal allocation of the original applicant. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in the submission so advanced by Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State that the order passed by the Central Government on representation of the original applicant can either be challenged by the State Government or the State Government is not bound to comply with the same particularly when the direction as such have the force of sections 71 and 72 of the 2000 Act. 11. Next submission which has been put forth on behalf of the State Government is with regard to bifurcation of the cadre with reference to Rule 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (in brief "the J954 Rules "). Rule 5(2) on which heavy reliance is placed by the State Government states that the Central Government may, with concurrence of the State Government concerned transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre. Rule 5(2) only requires the concurrence of the State Government when a cadre of an officer is changed from one to another. 12. Now the question is about the application of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the 1954 Rules. Rule 5(2) only requires the concurrence of the State Government when a cadre of an officer is changed from one to another. 12. Now the question is about the application of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the 1954 Rules. The core issue is that when initially the original applicant was directed to be allocated to the new State of Chhattisgarh in pursuance of 2000 Act and it was found that such allocation was based on wrong representation of fact by the State Government then under these circumstances whether Rule 5(2) would have any application particularly in the light of sections 71 and 72 of the 2000 Act, which has already been explained in the earlier paragraphs of this order. To dwell upon the said controversy, it is relevant to note that this is not a case where cadre of original applicant is changed or he is allocated from one cadre to another cadre. It is a case where wrong committed by the State Government by passing the earlier order of allocation to the new State of Chhattisgarh, has been directed to be corrected while allowing the representation vide order dated 24-8-2007. It is surprising to note that the State Government at no point of time challenged the order dated 24-8-2007 whereby representation of respondent No. 1, the original applicant was accepted. While filing the return a defence was taken that said order is not binding on the State Government. The tribunal has commented enough on such a stand taken by the State Government and, therefore, we need not to reiterate the same. However, if the State Government was aggrieved of the said order dated 24-8-2007 then it was incumbent on their part to challenge the same in appropriate forum but the State Government kept silent and did not challenge the said order, therefore, now at this stage it is not open to them to challenge the order dated 24-8-2007. 13. In the facts and circumstances which have already been highlighted hereinabove, it is not the change of cadre of the respondent No. 1, the original applicant from one to another. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive that the said Rule 5(2) has any application in the present case. 14. The allegation made by the State Government that it was not consulted in terms to Rule 5(2) of the 1954 Rules is also not correct. Therefore, it is difficult to conceive that the said Rule 5(2) has any application in the present case. 14. The allegation made by the State Government that it was not consulted in terms to Rule 5(2) of the 1954 Rules is also not correct. In this reference, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 28-9-2007 annexed as Annexure P-12 with the Writ Petition No. 15122/2008 (S) are relevant, which read as under:- 6. Subsequently, the Government of Madhya Pradesh was consulted and requested to verify the claim of Shri Shukla through this Department's letter 15-3-2007. However, the Government of Madhya Pradesh did not raise any objection and just forwarded the reference to this Department to the Government of Chhattisgarh with the request to verify the information with the service record of Shri Shukla and send a reply to this Department in their letter dated 29-3-2007. In the extract of the service book of Shri Shukla, his residence and postal address is shown as 'Bilaspur' which is the part of Chhattisgarh now and his father's name and last address is shown as "Dr. L. M. Shukla, MS Civil Surgeon, Rewa". This entry is dated 7-4-1977. 7. From the position stated in the preceding paragraphs, it is observed that in the service book of Shri Shukla his residential and postal address is recorded as "Bilaspur" under column 3 whereas his father's name and last address is recorded 'Dr. M. L. Shukla, MS Civil Surgeon, Rewa' under column 4. The entry in the service book is dated 7-4-1977 whereas the entry made in the descriptive roll of Shri Shukla is dated 20-7-1974 which shows his home address as 'Rewa', Madhya Pradesh. 8. In view of the position stated above, the matter was placed before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) for reallocation of Shri Shukla's cadre. The ACC took a decision to change the allocation of Shri Vinay Shukla, IAS (RR;74) from Chhattisgarh cadre to Madhya Pradesh cadre on the premises that the home district of Shri Shukla was 'Rewa' and Rewa forms part of Madhya Pradesh. On receipt of the approval of the ACC, the notification to this effect was issued by this Department on 24-8-2007 with a copy to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Government of Chhattisgarh and to Shri Vinay Shukla, IAS (RR:74). 9. On receipt of the approval of the ACC, the notification to this effect was issued by this Department on 24-8-2007 with a copy to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Government of Chhattisgarh and to Shri Vinay Shukla, IAS (RR:74). 9. The perusal of the descriptive roll of Shri Vinay Shukla as authenticated by Cabinet Sectt. makes it clear that his home address given at the time of entry into service on 20-7-1974 has been recorded as 'c/o Dr. M. L. Shukla, MS Civil Surgeon, Main Hospital, PO Rewa Madhya Pradesh'. This fact is corroborated in the extracts of service book furnished by the Government of Chhattisgarh which was dated 7-4-1977 wherein his father's name and address is shown as 'Shri M.L. Shukla, MS Civil Surgeon, Rewa'. Thus, it was held that 'Rewa' was the home district of Shri Shukla at the time of his entry in service and, therefore, the Central Government reallocated Shri Shukla to Madhya Pradesh cadre. 10. As far as consultation with State Government is concerned, this Department did write to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh along with the representation of Shri Shukla for its comments but the State Government of Madhya Pradesh did not raise any objection and merely forwarded the matter to the State Government of Chhattisgarh. The State Government of Chhattisgarh provided the extract of his service book. Going by the entry in the descriptive roll, a document filed by Shri Shukla when he entered the LAS for the first time, and the service book recorded three years later, it was deduced, as the UPSC dossier has not been traceable, that home town of Shri Shukla should be "Rewa" and, accordingly, the order for his reallocation to Madhya Pradesh were issued with the approval of the ACC. On the basis of the same it is clear that it is not the case where the Central Government has not intimated the State Government with respect to representation submitted by the original applicant by which representation was rejected. The Central Government intimated the State Government about the representation submitted by the original applicant for reconsideration of his representation and letter was written by the Central Government to the State of M.P. intimating them to intimate the position so that correct facts may be verified. The Central Government intimated the State Government about the representation submitted by the original applicant for reconsideration of his representation and letter was written by the Central Government to the State of M.P. intimating them to intimate the position so that correct facts may be verified. The State Government intimated the Central Government that they do not possess the necessary record and record is with the State of Chhattisgarh. The State of Chhattisgarh forwarded the service book of the original applicant vide their letter dated 29-3-2007 and said service book was perused. After perusal of the service book the Central Government came to the conclusion that o:i the basis of misrepresentation the original applicant was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. 15. In view of the aforesaid, Rule 5(2) of the 1954 Rules which stipulates consultation of the Central Government with the State Government has to be understood. The word 'consultation' means that, there should be deliberation. In the present case, there had been deliberation but the State of M.P. was not having the requisite material to supply to the Central Government. On the contrary, it expressed its inability to provide material on the ground that State of Chhattisgarh has the service book. The State of M.P. also wrote to the State of Chhattisgarh for providing necessary papers to the Central Government. The State of Chhattisgarh forwarded the service book and then the decision was taken. According to us, before passing the impugned order of reallocation there had been consultation and such a consultation is also in terms to Rule 5(2) of the 1954 Rules. The word 'consultation' under the circumstances cannot be understood to mean 'permission'. 16. Apart from the aforesaid, section 85 of the 2000 Act also will have relevance in the present case. According to section 85, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Thus, in view of the provision as contained in sections 71 and 72 which have already been discussed earlier and section 85 of the 2000 Act, even otherwise the Rule 5(2) of the 1954 Rules will not have the overriding effect particularly when an officer is wrongly allocated to the new State of Chhattisgarh which has also been accepted by the Central Government on his representation. 17. 17. It is further contended on behalf of the State Government that there had been inordinate delay in filing the case by the original applicant before the tribunal. After his allocation, the original applicant was directed to join his duties in the new State of Chhattisgarh on or before 30th November, 2000. He submitted a representation against the same and was also supplied with the communication of rejection of representation on 29th September, 2006. Thereafter, he submitted an application for review by submitting another representation. According to the facts floating on the surface of the judgment passed by the tribunal the review was submitted on the discovery of fraud and misrepresentation by the State Government and ultimately the same was found to be correct and the review application was allowed. Thereafter, the order passed by the Central Government in favour of the respondent No. 1 reallocating him to the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24-8-2007 was not given effect to. A reminder was also given by the Central Government to implement the same, which was not at all accepted, therefore, the original applicant was forced to file original application before the tribunal seeking direction to implement the Notification passed by the Central Government for reallocating his services to the State of M.P. cadre. 18. During the course of argument Mr. V. K. Shukla submitted that the State Government is bound by the directions issued by the Central Government. True it is, that direction was issued by the Central Government in favour of the original applicant to cancel his original allocation to new State of Chhattisgarh and further directing that he will stand reallocated to the State of M.P. cadre. Under these circumstances, the question of delay and laches may not play any important role particularly when the tribunal has also recorded a finding that initial allocation of the original applicant was based upon supply of incorrect facts by the State Government. In W.P. No. 15122/2008 (S) the State Government has challenged the order dated 24-8-2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Central Government accepting representation of the original applicant, which is too late for the State Government to challenge by filing a separate petition before this Court. The petitioner-State Government had not challenged the same before the appropriate forum at an appropriate time, therefore, now the relief claimed by the petitioner-State as such cannot be granted. 19. The petitioner-State Government had not challenged the same before the appropriate forum at an appropriate time, therefore, now the relief claimed by the petitioner-State as such cannot be granted. 19. A peculiar feature in the present case is that when the order impugned [Annexure P-12 in W.P. No. 15122/2008 (S)] was passed, the State of M.P. refused to accept the joining without even challenging the said order. The State being the guardian of its employees and officers should have respected the order passed by the Central Government and if the order passed by the Central Government was not acceptable then they should have challenged the same before appropriate forum. This aspect has already been dealt with by us in the earlier paragraph. In this context the decision rendered by the Apex Court in S. I. Rooplal and another vs. Lt. Governor, through Chief Secretary Delhi and others, AIR 2000 SC 594 is relevant. Though the said decision deals with the role of the State Government being an impartial employer with regard to dispute relating to the determination of the seniority, the Apex Court in Para 25 has held as under:- Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum Stale should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned :o agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, filed review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned. On the basis of aforesaid, it is clear that the State should not have involved itself in the litigation with regard to reallocation of the original applicant particularly when if finding was recorded by the Central Governmen': that the earlier allocation of the original applicant to the State of Chhattisgarh was based upon wrong facts, then the observations made by the Apex Court in Para 25 would be relevant and apparently it appears that an impression is being created by the State Government that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees but may be affected because of the reallocation of the original applicant to the State of Madhya Pradesh. 20. In view of the aforesaid, we concur with the finding arrived at by the tribunal in its order dated 23-10-2008 and uphold the same. It is observed that the question of delay and laches with regard to entitlement of the applicant tor salary and other emoluments shall depend upon the nature of the order to be passed by the State Government. We also refrain ourselves from passing such orders for payment of salary because the tribunal itself has not addressed itself to the said issue. However, we are inclined to direct that the State Government shall pass appropriate orders with regard to payment of salary and other emoluments for the period the original applicant was kept out of job because of wrong allocation, within a period of three months from the date the State Government obtains the copy of this order. In case, any adverse order is passed by the State Government, the original applicant shall have a right to challenge the same in appropriate forum. 21. In course of argument, learned counsel appearing for original applicant submitted that he is not pressing the relief of damages. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating the issue in relation to entitlement of the original applicant to claim damages. 22. 21. In course of argument, learned counsel appearing for original applicant submitted that he is not pressing the relief of damages. Accordingly, we are not adjudicating the issue in relation to entitlement of the original applicant to claim damages. 22. Resultantly, the writ petitions filed by the State Government which are numbered as W.P. No. 13660/2008 (S) and W.P. No. 15122/2008 (S) stand dismissed and the W.P. No. 982/2009 (S) so filed by the original applicant is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed