JUDGMENT : SRI VIPIN SANGHI, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 03.03.2014, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No.69 of 2011, as well as the order dated 24.06.2019, passed in the aforesaid claim petition by the same Tribunal, whereby the recall application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The petitioner was serving as an employee of the U.P. Dairy Development Department. He was posted as Government Milk Supervisor in Gopeshwar, District Chamoli.In the year 1994, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. After completion of the Departmental Inquiry, the petitioner was terminated by the State of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 05.12.1996. The petitioner challenged his termination before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No.2434/1997. Upon creation of the State of Uttaranchal (which was later on renamed as “Uttarakhand”), the said claim petition was transferred by virtue of Section 91 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and was re-numbered as 41 of 2005. The said claim petition was disposed of by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal on 21.07.2009, by permitting the petitioner to file a Department Appeal before the State of Uttar Pradesh. That appeal was rejected by the State of U.P. vide order dated 15.07.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Claim Petition No.69 of 2011 before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, since the petitioner was a servant of State of Uttar Pradesh, and he had never been absorbed or transferred as an employee of the State of Uttarakhand, since he had already been dismissed from service before the creation of State of Uttarakhand in the year 2000. 3. The recall application was also rejected by the Tribunal, as aforesaid. 4. The submission of Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, by virtue of Section 91 of the Act, the Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand had jurisdiction. It is for this reason that the claim petition preferred by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and re-numbered as 41 of 2005. The said claim petition was disposed of on 21.07.2009. 5. Mr. It is for this reason that the claim petition preferred by the petitioner before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and re-numbered as 41 of 2005. The said claim petition was disposed of on 21.07.2009. 5. Mr. Kumar further submits that, therefore, the claim petition was again maintainable before the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal even in relation to the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner’s departmental appeal on 15.07.2011. 6. Mr. Kumar has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 25.09.2018, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No.436 of 2015, where this Court held that a claim petition, which stood transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, by virtue of Section 91 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, could not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders. 8. There is no denial of fact that the petitioner was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. His services were terminated while he was still serving as an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.1996. He preferred the claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. 9. By invoking Section 91 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, the proceedings were transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and re-numbered as 41 of 2005. 10. At this stage, we may take note of Section 91 of the U.P. Reorganization Act. Sub-section (1) thereof is relevant, and the same reads as follows:- “Section 91(1) Every proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority, or officer of that State”. (emphasis supplied) 11. A perusal of the said provision shows that only those proceedings, relating ‘exclusively’ to the territory of Uttarakhand, were liable to be transferred to the corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority, or Officer in the State of Uttarakhand, and not other proceedings. 12. The petitioner was in service of the Dairy Development Department, Uttar Pradesh, and he was in a transferrable post. A perusal of the said provision shows that only those proceedings, relating ‘exclusively’ to the territory of Uttarakhand, were liable to be transferred to the corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority, or Officer in the State of Uttarakhand, and not other proceedings. 12. The petitioner was in service of the Dairy Development Department, Uttar Pradesh, and he was in a transferrable post. He could be posted at any location within the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it existed before its reorganization. Merely because he was posted at the relevant time in Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, it could not be said that the proceedings initiated by him before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal related exclusively to the territory of Uttarakhand. In fact, the transfer of claim petition to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal was, therefore, not even called for, in the first instance. 13. In any event of the matter, Section 91 of the Act only deals with the aspect of transfer of pending proceedings. Mere transfer of pending proceedings would not change the status of the petitioner as an erstwhile employee of the State of U.P. He never became an employee of the State of Uttarakhand. Even the appellate order has been passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In respect of the order dated 15.07.2011, Section 91 of the Act cannot be invoked, as Section 91 only deals with pending proceedings, as on the date of reorganization of the State of U.P. 14. That being the position, in our view, the Tribunal was right in concluding that it had not territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 15. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 17. However, in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Competent Court/ Tribunal in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 18. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.