S C GHILDIAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand. Immediately before the State of Uttarakhand was created, petitioner was working with MDDA, an authority created by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In 2004, petitioner was transferred to Bareilly Development Authority.

(2.) IN this petition, petitioner has claimed arrears on account of revision, which has not been effected. He is asking MDDA to effect the revision and thereupon to enter the same in his service records so as to enable him to obtain arrears. Petitioner was and continued to remain an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was posted by Uttar Pradesh at MDDA. It is the State of Uttar Pradesh, which transferred the petitioner from MDDA to Bareilly Development Authority. The question is, whether, in these circumstances, this Court can issue a mandamus upon the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner contends that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court as the petitioner was working with MDDA during the relevant time. There is no dispute that the petitioner worked for some time with MDDA after creation of the State of Uttarakhand, but the right of the petitioner to obtain a revision is enforceable only against the State of Uttar Pradesh. IN the event, the State of Uttar Pradesh accords a revision in favour of the petitioner, MDDA will be obliged to accord the same to the petitioner and so would be the Bareilly Development Authority. The question is, can this Court issue a mandamus upon the State of Uttar Pradesh for effecting such revision. The fact remains that the petitioner was a part and parcel of the centralized service and, accordingly, all the records pertaining to the petitioner remained in the State of Uttar Pradesh at all relevant time and, as such, mandamus, asking the State of Uttar Pradesh to revise the pay-scale of the petitioner, can only be mandated by the Allahabad High Court and not by this Court. On that ground, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case and, as such, it shall be open to the petitioner to take such recourse to law as is available to him.