GYAN SINGH S/O SRI NATTHU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER stood finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. That allocation reached finality, inasmuch as, no action was taken to challenge the same. Similarly one Shri Sayeed Rashid Jamal Rashidi was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand which allocation, too, reached finality for similar reason. Petitioner and Shri Rashidi then applied to the Central Government for altering their respective allocations on mutual consent. By a communication dated 27th October, 2009, the Central Government informed that in view of contempt petition filed by Shri Rashidi, his case was considered by the Central Government and his allocation was revised to the State of Uttar Pradesh by an order dated 20th November, 2006. In the letter, it was further indicated that since both, Petitioner and Shri Rashidi, stand allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh, there is no point in considering mutual transfer application. It was further indicated that Shri Rashidi has retired on 31st May, 2007 and mutual transfer with a retired employee is not permissible. Assailing the stand taken in the said letter, the present writ petition has been filed. It has been contended that because a contempt petition was filed by Shri Rashidi, his case was considered and he was allocated to the State of his choice but there is no just reason why the case of the Petitioner has not been considered. The fact remains, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court, the moment the Central Government finally allocates an employee of erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, it becomes functus officio. Subsequent thereto it has no power either under the Reorganization Act or otherwise to deal with an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh or of the State of Uttarakhand in any manner whatsoever. That being the situation, the request for mutual transfer made to the Central Government by the Petitioner itself was incompetent to be looked at or considered by the Central Government. That being the situation, Petitioner has no legal enforceable right, violation whereof can emanate from the said letter of the Central Government dated 27th October, 2009.

(2.) WE , accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. We, however, request the State of Uttar Pradesh through its counsel to permit the Petitioner to join his duties in the State of Uttar Pradesh as quickly as possible and not to take any punitive action against the Petitioner for the period he did not join his duties in the State of Uttar Pradesh until today, inasmuch as, Petitioner could be advised that in the event he joins his services in the State of Uttar Pradesh his present writ petition would become infructuous. It is though made clear that the State of Uttar Pradesh shall only be obliged to pay the salaries payable to the Petitioner from the date he joins his services in the State of Uttar Pradesh.