SMT. NEELAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, she opted for the State of Uttarakhand, when, by carving out a part of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the State of Uttarakhand was created. Petitioner, however, has not been able to substantiate the said contention by producing any contemporary document. Respondents have contended that the Petitioner opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) THE fact remains that before creation of the State of Uttarakhand, Petitioner was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. By reason of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, Petitioner became a provisional employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. She was to be allocated to either of the States by the Central Government. The Central Government prepared a tentative allocation list of people similar to that of the Petitioner and therein indicated that the Petitioner stands allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequent thereto, in 2006 the Central Government finalized the allocation list of people similar to that of the Petitioner and thereby allocated the Petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Despite such allocation, Petitioner was not relieved by the State of Uttarakhand, where she was working until the final allocation was made. Petitioner was continuing to serve the State of Uttarakhand. In 2008, State of Uttarakhand promoted the Petitioner to the next higher post by selecting her as a suitable candidate entitled to be promoted on the said post through a regularly held Departmental Promotion Committee. In that view of the matter, the status of the Petitioner was altered by the State of Uttarakhand, although Petitioner was never an employee of the State of Uttarakhand either as a provisional employee on the basis of directions of the Central Government in terms of the said Act or on the basis of final allocation.

(3.) WE , accordingly, set aside the order relieving the Petitioner by preserving the liberty to the State of Uttarakhand to relieve the Petitioner in future provided it can ensure that the Petitioner would be given same status as that of what she is holding in the State of Uttarakhand today.