Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 137 (ALL)

Om Pal Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-01-18

YASHWANT VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Union respondent. 2. This petition has been preferred principally seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned final allocation list dated 9.5.2005 (Annexure no. 1), Reliving orders in respect of the petitioners dated 7.7.2012, 19.7.2012 and 30.10.2012 (Annexure no. 2) and official memo dated 15.9.2017 (Annexure no. 3)." 3. The principal attack is on the order dated 9 May 2005 in terms of which the petitioner was allocated the State of Uttarakhand consequent to the provisions of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. 4. Undisputedly the petitioners assailed this order by way of a writ petition in which an interim order was initially passed. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners who were allocated the State of Uttarakhand in 2005 are stated to have been continued in this State till 2010. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed on 8 October 2010. The order of 8 October 2010 was set aside in a Special Appeal which was preferred by the petitioners and allowed on 8 April 2013. On remand, the petition came to be dismissed yet again on 16 July 2013. This order was again subjected to an intra court appeal which was disposed of on 28 April 2015 leaving it open to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for review/recall before the learned Judge. The review application was negatived by the order of 4 September 2015. The petitioners preferred yet another Special Appeal which was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to represent their case before the State Government. It is pursuant to the liberty granted by virtue of the last order passed in the series of special appeals preferred by the petitioners that the subsequent impugned orders came to be passed. 5. Before this Court and from the record, it is evident that the initial order of allocation of 9 May 2005 which was assailed by the petitioners by way of instituting various writ petitions was never set aside by any of the final judgments rendered there on. 5. Before this Court and from the record, it is evident that the initial order of allocation of 9 May 2005 which was assailed by the petitioners by way of instituting various writ petitions was never set aside by any of the final judgments rendered there on. It is also the admitted position that the petitioners who continued to stay in this State pursuant to an interim order up to 2010 were ultimately relieved in 2012. The petitioners' allocation to the State of Uttarakhand consequently attained finality and is sought to be reopened solely on the basis of certain observations made by the Division Bench passed in the Special Appeal to the extent of leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the State Government and ventilate their grievances bearing in mind the observations as appearing in a judgment rendered by a learned Judge in Writ A No. 3636 of 2005 Jagdish Narayan Doharey Vs. State of U.P. And others. 6. Suffice it to note that the directions issued in this petition related to those class III and Class IV employees who were allocated the State of Uttarakhand against their will and had not complied with the allocation order or were continuing on the basis of interlocutory orders. The Judgment in Jagdish Narayan Doharey had come to be rendered on 22 May 2015. On that date the admitted fact is that the petitioner was not continuing in the State of U.P. having already been relieved in 2012." 7. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has additionally referred to a policy decision taken by the State Government providing that henceforth no employee would be allocated to the State of Uttarakhand without following the due process of law, this order of 2010 cannot possibly come to the aid of the petitioner whose allocation was made in 2005. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.