HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.
Pushpak Jyoti
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 52499 of 2002
Decided On : 11 December 2003
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 52499 Of 2002
U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 - Allocation - Sections 73, 75, 76, 77 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 73, 75, 76, and 77 of the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000, which relate to the allocation of government employees to the State of Uttaranchal. The court highlighted the process of provisional and final allocation of employees, the establishment of advisory committees, and the power of the Central Government to give directions to the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged the allocation of petitioners to the State of Uttaranchal under the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. The petitioners were government employees affected by the creation of the State of Uttaranchal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final allocation of employees to Uttaranchal was made by the Central Government under Section 73(2) of the Act, based on the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee. The court also held that the allocation did not violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the allocation of government employees to Uttaranchal under the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000, and the alleged violation of constitutional provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the final allocation of employees to Uttaranchal was made by the Central Government based on the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee, and the allocation did not violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The court also emphasized the reasonable classification of domiciles of Uttaranchal for allocation.
Final Decision: The court upheld the final allocation of employees to Uttaranchal and rejected the contentions challenging the allocation and its compliance with constitutional provisions.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions and the bunch of connected writ petitions have challenged the validity of the petitioners allocation to the State of Uttaranchal consequent upon the creation of the State of uttaranchal by the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment.
( 2 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these connected petitions. We have also heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 was selected as an Officer in the Provincial police Service in 1987 Batch. After completing his training he joined the service on 3. 3. 1990 and was initially posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rampur. Presently he is posted as additional Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
( 4 ) THE U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was enacted by Parliament% which the State of U. P. was bifurcated and a new State called uttaranchal1 Was created. Since a new State was being created obviously some U. P. Government employees had to be allocated to the State of uttaranchal.
( 5 ) THE relevant provision in the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 with which we are concerned in these petitions are Sections 73, 75, 76 and 77 of the Act. These provisions are as follows :-" 73. Provisions relating to All India Services.-- (1) Every persons who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the state of Uttar Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal: provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-section (1)shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of Sub-section (2) to a successor state shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor state from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments concerned or in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government.
75. Provisions as to continuance of Officers in same post.-- (1) Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of or any other Appropriate Authority in that successor State : provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Competent Authority, on and from the appointed day, from passing in relation to such person any order affecting the continuance in such post or office.
76. Advisory Committees.-- (1) Central Government may, by order, establish one or more advisory Committees for the purpose of assisting it in regard to- (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this part and (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons.
77. Power of Central Government to give direction
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
Babulal v. Collector of Customs
Sakhawant Ali v. State of Orissa
Gopichand v. Delhi Administration
Srikishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Ram Chandra v. State of Orissa
Shri Swamiji of Admar Muti v. Commissioner
State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries
Srinivasa Enterprises v. Union of India
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala
G.P. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Delhi Science Forum and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
U.P. Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen and Acetylence Gas Ltd.
Referred to : G. Dasaratha Ram Rao v. State of A.P.
A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of A.P.
Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh
State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh
Kangshari Haldhar v. State of West Bengal
State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar
Union of India v. International Trading Co.
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India
U.P. Kattha Factories Association v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Ors.
Netal Bag and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Padam Dev and Ors.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lata Arun
Pramod Kumar Misra v. Indian Oil Corporation
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Department of Trade
Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.