IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 11686 of 2021

PANKAJ CHAUHAN

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri S. K. Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar- learned Deputy Solicitor General for

respondent no.1.

Smt. Monica Mishra - learned Government Advocate for respondent

no.2/State.

Shri Devendra Choubey- learned counsel for respondent no.3.

ORDER namely State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 01/11/2000. The General Administration Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh issued guidelines to be followed while allocating the employees of various departments to the successor States, vide circular dated 22/03/2001 (Annexure P/3). The guidelines in nutshell has categorized the employees in four categories as under:-

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated

05/07/2006 (Annexure-P/11) and 14/06/2021 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the representation submitted by him against his allocation to the State of

Chhattisgarh has been rejected.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner is

working as Sub-Engineer in respondent- Water Resources Department and

was posted at Sub-Division, Gwalior.

3. As per the provisions of M.P. State Re-Organization Act, 2000, the

erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh was bifurcated into two new States

(i) A-1- In this category those employees were included who belonged to the State of Chhattisgarh and opted for their allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh.

(ii) A-2- This category consisted of those employees who though belonged to State of Madhya Pradesh but have opted for Chhattisgarh. (iii) A-3- In this category those employees were included who have their home district in the State of Chhattisgarh.

(iv) A-4- In this category the junior most employees in a particular scale were to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh irrespective of their of options.

4. The petitioner was included in the list of employees to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. As per the instructions issued vide circular dated 22/01/2001, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation challenging his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh before the State Advisory Committee, Bhopal (M.P.) on 08/09/2001 (Annexure- P/4). When his representation was not decided, he filed O.A. No.1242/2001 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. Upon abolition of Tribunal, original application was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.7364/2003. The said writ petition alongwith several other writ petitions were placed before the Lok Adalat on 21/02/2004. With the consent of parties, the writ petitions were disposed off giving liberty to the employees to file a fresh representation to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi. The Government of India was directed to send for the comments of both the States and then decide the representations in accordance with the norms laid down for allocation of employees. The petitioner submitted his representation again on 23/03/2004 (Annexure-P/10) alongwith the order passed by this Court in the Lok Adalat.

5. The representation of the petitioner alongwith several others was rejected by the order of the Deputy Secretary (SR), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi vide order dated 05/07/2006 (Annexure-

P/11).

6. A perusal of this order shows that no reasons were assigned for rejecting the representation. Further at serial no.17, the name of Hari Pankaj Chauhan was mentioned. This was supposed to be the name of the petitioner, however, wrongly stated. The petitioner, therefore, requested respondent authority to remove the discrepancy in the impugned order by submitting the application on 23/07/2006 (Annexure-P/12). The impugned order dated 14/06/2