SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and the private respondents were employees of the U.P. Jal Nigam. After the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated, the U.P. Jal Nigam too stood bifurcated. In order to transfer the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam to the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, appropriate amendment was made to Section 37 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act"). In terms of such amendment, a member of hill sub-cadre; an employee, who has exercised option to come to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam; and a person, who has a decision in his favour by a competent court of law to serve Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, were deemed to have been transferred from U.P. Jal Nigam to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. The petitioners as well as the private respondents were transferred to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam in terms of the amended Section 37 of the said Act. The petitioners, while serving the U.P. Jal Nigam, were undisputedly juniors to the private respondents herein. As a result, the petitioners also remained juniors to the private respondents on transfer of all of them from U.P. Jal Nigam to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioners are contending that the private respondents could not be transferred to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, inasmuch as, the private respondents were not members of hill sub-cadre, they did not exercise options for Uttarakhand State, and there is no decision of any competent court of law, which entailed joining by the private respondents to Uttarakhand State. The orders impugned in the writ petition suggest that the private respondents, having had opted for Uttarakhand, were transferred to Uttarakhand. It is being contended in the writ petition that such contention is unjust and improper. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to many a reports submitted from time to time by various authorities of the State of Uttarakhand, including its Secretary, for the purpose of suggesting inter alia that the purported options, said to have been given by the private respondents, are not available. Apropos that, the contention of the private respondents is that they exercised options, they also approached the court and, since they exercised options and since the court directed their options to be looked at appropriately, they were ultimately allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and were accepted as employees of Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to various reports as above, suggesting that there are findings by many authorities that many averments made in many a petitions by many of the private respondents contained untruth or half truth. In sum and substance, it was contended that this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would go into the question, whether in fact options were exercised by the private respondents, and if so, whether those were proper and valid, alternately, to direct appropriate authority of the State to take appropriate action pertaining to the findings that they have recorded in various reports, referred to above.

(3.) It was contended that inasmuch as the petitioners have become juniors to the private respondents on their transfer to Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam, the private respondents have affected the future prospects of the petitioners and that appears to be the locus standi of the petitioners pertaining to exercise of options by the private respondents, consideration thereof and validity of such consideration. It appears that questions of fact, pertaining to exercise of options, have been highlighted in the present writ petition, seeking an adjudication thereon, which appears to be not permissible. It is true that pertaining to exercise of options, whereas there are orders passed by this Court, there are remarks in relation thereto in purported investigations made by different authorities subsequent thereto, we doubt the legal standing of such observations. A matter dealt with by the court reaches finality and, even if the same is by wrong order, that order finalises the matter and no one is permitted to question the same, except by approaching the court and asking a review thereof. The Secretary has stated in his report that the original options of the private respondents are not available on file. At the same time, considering the options exercised by the private respondents, they have been taken in the Uttarakhand Pey Jal Nigam. The statement and the action, referred to above, are contradictory to each other. A writ court, on the basis of such contradictory stands taken by authorities, cannot do a thing, for that would require adjudication of disputed questions of facts.