JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. This is an unfortunate litigation which arises out of bifurcation of the State of Uttar Pradesh into the State of Uttaranchal, which was subsequently renamed as Uttarakhand, and the State of Uttar Pradesh, by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. Interestingly, the bifurcation was given effect exactly 23 years back on 9th November, 2000. Today, we have a case of the first respondent -Baleshwar Singh, who was admittedly an employee of the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh and who has been deprived of salary for a considerable long time and retiral benefits though there was no fault on his part.

2. It is not in dispute that there was a policy of the Central Government for mutual transfer. The communications to that effect have been placed on record. On 25th September, 2007, the first respondent-Baleshwar Singh, who was appointed on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, gave his written consent opting for posting in the newly created State of Uttarakhand. The third respondent -Mahendra Pratap Singh gave his consent for posting in the reconstituted State of Uttar Pradesh. He was also holding the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Ultimately, by consent of the second respondent -State of Uttarakhand and the third respondent -Mahendra Pratap Singh, a mutual transfer order dated 6th August, 2008, was issued by which the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh was allocated to the State of Uttarakhand and the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh was allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. In September, 2008, letters were issued by the respective Governments relieving the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh and the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh. The first respondent -Baleshwar Singh accordingly joined duty in the State of Uttarakhand on 30th September, 2008. Then came a decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 26th July, 2010. As a result of the said order, the policy of the mutual transfer was set at naught. As a result of which, the first respondent -Baleshwar Singh made an application to the State of Uttarakhand to relieve him from duty. On 5th April, 2011, the State of Uttarakhand directed the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh to resume his duty in the reconstituted State of Uttar Pradesh and a similar direction was issued to the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh to resume duty in the State of Uttarakhand. The third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh by filing a writ petition, challenged the said order in which the Allahabad High Court on 15th April, 2011 stayed the order dated 5th April, 2011. This compelled the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh to file a writ petition. We may note here that in the petition filed by the third respondent – Mahendra Pratap Singh, on 28th May, 2012, the Allahabad High Court passed the following order:

“The Circular dated 30.11.2011 be placed on record through supplementary affidavit to enable learned counsel for the other counsel to make their submission.

List on 11.7.2012.

In the meantime, without disturbing the petitioner of Writ Petition No.663 (S/B) of 2011, the State Government may permit Sri Baleshwar Singh, the petitioner of Writ Petition No.852 (S/B) of 2011, to resume duty which shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court.”

4. Admittedly, the first appellant -State of Uttar Pradesh never abided by the said order. We may note that there was a review application filed by the State, which was dismissed on 11th June, 2012. The said review application was filed seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand.

5. The net result of this situation is that the first respondent – Baleshwar Singh was relieved by the State of Uttarakhand and notwithstanding the order dated 28th May, 2012, the State of Uttar Pradesh did not allow him to resume his duty. There was one more development in the meanwhile. On 2nd April, 2013, final allocation of personnel of Prov