SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 2710

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

Advocates Appeared:
Ashok Khare, B.N.Singh, S.K.Shukla, SADHNA UPADHYA, SANT SHARAN UPADHYA,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the final allocation of government employees to Uttaranchal under the U. P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was made by the Central Government based on the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee, and the allocation did not violate constitutional provisions.

Headnote:

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.

M. KATJU, J.

( 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





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top