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

2019 Supreme(All) 1290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Dr. Vijay Vikram Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandary Lko. & Ors. – Respondents
Service Bench No. 1641 of 2011
Decided On : 15-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pratyush Tripathi, Ashwani Kumar, Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Anjima Gupta, Ashish Kumar Singh, Atma Ram Mishra, R.K.Katiyar, Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 – Seniority list – Challenged – Challenging impugned order/letter whereby State Government taken decision that all Veterinary Officers who were not allocated the State of Uttar Pradesh after bifurcation of State and have been subsequently absorbed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seniority of such employees shall be determined from the date of their absorption – Held, Once petitioners were allowed to give their option/representation and on basis of said option decision been taken by competent authority for allocating petitioners to State of Uttar Pradesh – Opposite parties cannot differentiate between Veterinary Officers who were earlier allocated to State of Uttar Pradesh and petitioners who have been subsequently allocated to State of Uttar Pradesh and petitioners stand on same footing as other persons working on the posts of Veterinary Officers – No reason or justification for the opposite parties to treat petitioners differently and place them at the bottom of the seniority list of the Veterinary Officers – Writ petition allowed. (Para 41, 43)

Facts of the Case:

Challenging impugned order/letter whereby State Government taken decision that all Veterinary Officers who were not allocated the State of Uttar Pradesh after bifurcation of State and have been subsequently absorbed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seniority of such employees shall be determined from the date of their absorption.

Finding of Court:

Once petitioners were allowed to give their option/representation and on basis of said option decision been taken by competent authority for allocating petitioners to State of Uttar Pradesh – Opposite parties cannot differentiate between Veterinary Officers who were earlier allocated to State of Uttar Pradesh and petitioners who have been subsequently allocated to State of Uttar Pradesh and petitioners stand on same footing as other persons working on the posts of Veterinary Officers – No reason or justification for the opposite parties to treat petitioners differently and place them at the bottom of the seniority list of the Veterinary Officers.

Result: Writ petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kapil Dev, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3, Mr. R.K. Katiyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.4 and 5 and Mr. Samanvaya Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.12 to 25. The respective opposite parties have filed their counter affidavits, to which rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioners.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order/letter dated 4.11.2009, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the State Government has taken a decision that all such Veterinary Officers who were not allocated the State of Uttar Pradesh after bifurcation of the State and have been subsequently absorbed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seniority of such employees shall be determined from the date of their absorption. The petitioners have also challenged the impugned seniority list as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition so far as it relate to the fixation of seniority of Veterinary Medical Officers of 1997 batch. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix the seniority of the petitioners from the date of their selection in the service as per Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.

3. As per the facts of the case as given in the writ petition the petitioners had joined the services of the opposite parties as Veterinary Officers after their selection by U.P. Public Service Commission in the year 1997 and 1998 and they were placed in erstwhile hill sub-cadre in the State of Uttar Pradesh, but their services were transferable within the territory of entire State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. For the purposes of reorganizing the State of Uttar Pradesh and creating a new State of Uttarakhand the Parliament enacted U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. Out of the territories of the hill region of the then State of U.P. a new State namely State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) was created w.e.f. 9.11.2000. The Union of India in exercise of its powers vested in it under Section 77 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 issued letter/circular dated 13.9.2000 which provided that the allocation of the employees to the successor States shall be based upon their options. It was also provided that while separating the cadre and while allocating the employees to the cadre of the successor State their domicile and ethnic affinity shall be taken into consideration. In this regard the State Government had also issued similar directions vide letter dated 20.09.2000. In pursuance of the said letter options were invited from the State Government employees and they had submitted their options. The petitioners had submitted their option whereby they had opted to remain in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. The Central Government vide order dated 11.9.2011 had allocated all such employees including the petitioners who were working in erstwhile U.P. hill sub-cadre to the State of Uttarakhand. Similar orders were issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 10.5.2001.

6. Some of the petitioners and employees of some other departments had filed various writ petitions before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the orders of their final allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. Said writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 25.3.2004 and directions were issued to consider the representation of each and every individual. The Central Government had agreed that the representations of each and every individual employee would be considered separately and orders would be passed. It was thereafter that the petitioners had submitted their options and representation to the respective State Governments and State Advisory Committee and the representation of each and every petitioner was considered and thereafter with the consent of both

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top