JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being identified as Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari in view of notice dated 09.02.1995 communicated to one of the Government servant, who participated in the strike called for in support of the separate State of Uttarakhand in the month of October 1994. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was working with the respondent in Government District Treasury at Uttarkashi during the year 1994 when Uttarakhand Andolan for creation of separate State of Uttarakhand was in progress. The petitioner despite, being a Government servant, participated in the said strike, which was later on declared by erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh by sending Radiogram No.231/SK/94 dated 07.12.1994 illegal under the essential services and accordingly the temporary employees, who participated in the said strike, their services would be terminated with immediate effect and the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi was directed to call for explanation from the said employees, who participated in the aforesaid strike for separate State of Uttarakhand. 4. According to the petitioner similar notice was issued to him i.e. Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, under the hands of District Magistrate, Uttarkashi on 21.12.1994 and he was called upon to submit his explanation as to why his services be not terminated. 5. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand certain benefits were to be given to the Rajya Andolankari and for that purpose the identification of Rajya Andolankari was to be made by the State Government. The applications have been invited from Rajya Andolankari alongwith evidence in support thereof, consequently the petitioner- Birendra Singh Rana, Accountant, Treasury Office, Uttarkashi also submitted his application to identify him as Rajya Andolankari. The committee constituted for identification though did not recommend for identification of the petitioner as Rajya Andolankari for the reason that from the documents, which have been filed by the petitioner alongwith his application, it was clear that he participated in the strike but it was not clear as to whether that strike was with regard to the creation of the separate State of Uttarakhand. 6. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the committee has wrongly come to this conclusion that petitioner cannot be identified as Rajaya Andolankari. It is submitted by the petitioner that though the recommendations made by the said committee has not been acted upon so far. The other similarly situated persons like Kirti Dutt Bhatt and others have been identified as Rajya Andolankari. Since the recommendation was not there in favour of the petitioner, he has not been so identified. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons, who had been recommended and identified by the State as Rajya Andonankari like Kirti Dutt Bhatt was also in the self same strike and he had also been issued a notice whereby the strike was declared illegal by the same Radiogram but the only difference was that in case of petitioner the ^^i`Fkd mRrjk[kaM ds leFkZu eas jkT; deZpkfj;ksa }kjk vDVwcj 1994 ls vk;ksftr gMrky^^ words were missing in the show cause notice of the petitioner. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Radiogram was same and issued on the same date, therefore, the conclusion by the committee in not recommending the name of the petitioner for identification as Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari, is arbitrary and cannot sustain. 9. The counter affidavit has been called from the State. In counter affidavit it is submitted by the respondent State that no concrete evidence of involvement of petitioner in the separate Uttarakhand State Andolan was available, therefore, he has rightly been not recommended for identification. 10. The attention of this Court was drawn by the learned State Counsel on the Government Order dated 22.10.2008 annexed by the petitioner as Annexure No.RA 2 with the rejoinder affidavit and on the strength of that Government Order, it is argued that there was no concrete evidence, which could have been certified by the District Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. 11. 11. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner and in the rejoinder affidavit, it has been reiterated by the petitioner that there was only one and the same strike going on during October 1994 in District Uttarkashi rather in the all Districts of Uttarakhand, part of the erstwhile State of U.P. that is subsequently carved out as “Uttarakhand State” for demand of separate State of Uttarakhand. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the notice, which has been issued to the petitioner was issued under the same Radiogram No.231/SK/94 dated 07.12.1994 whereby the strike of Government servant was declared illegal and the show cause notice issued to Kirti Dutt Bhatt was also based on the same Radiogram No.231/SK/94 dated 07.12.1994 and, further the State has not come up with a reply that as to whether any other strike was going on in Uttarkashi during relevant period of October 1994, the action of non-recommendation of the petitioner cannot sustain. 13. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the decision of the committee constituted for identification of the Rajya Andolankari dated 08.05.2012 by which the name of the petitioner has not been recommended, is arbitrary and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. The non-recommendation so made by the committee is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his identification as Rajya Andolankari for separate State of Uttarakhand in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.