Writ Petition No. 1310 (S/S) of 2005 (Leading case) v. State of Uttaranchal through Home Secretary, Uttaranchal, Dehradun

Sri Dharam Veer, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 2- Writ Petition No. 1642 (S/S) of 2005 Nand Kishore & three others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 3- Writ Petition No. 1217 (S/S) of 2005 Const. Ashok Kumar & twenty others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents With 4- Writ Petition No. 1526 (S/S) of 2005 Radha Krishna & thirteen others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 5- Writ Petition No. 1571 (S/S) of 2005 Shiv Prakash Verma & twenty five others …Petitioners Versus Union of India & five others …Respondents With 6- Writ Petition No. 1572 (S/S) of 2005 Vinod Singh Yadav & Nineteen others …Petitioners Versus Union of India & three others …Respondents With 7- Writ Petition No. 1576 (S/S) of 2005 Promod Kumar Saxena & Nineteen others … Petitioners Versus Union of India & three others …Respondents With 8- Writ Petition No. 1591 (S/S) of 2005 G.R.P. Sant Ram & sixty two others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & two others …Respondents With 9- Writ Petition No. 1593 (S/S) of 2005 Arvind Kumar & fifteen others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 10- Writ Petition No. 1609 (S/S) of 2005 Pawan Kumar & fifty others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 11- Writ Petition No. 1612 (S/S) of 2005 Fireman Charan Singh & twenty two others … Petitioners Versus Union of India & three others …Respondents With 12- Writ Petition No. 1632 (S/S) of 2005 Jahir Ahmad & ten others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 13- Writ Petition No. 1641 (S/S) of 2005 Const. Jaibeer Singh & Eighty one others Petitioners … Versus Union of India & three others Respondents …… With 14- Writ Petition No. 1646 (S/S) of 2005 Amit Dhyani & two others …Petitioners Union of India & two others …Respondents Versus With 15- Writ Petition No. 1649 (S/S) of 2005 Const. Manak Chand & eight others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents With 16- Writ Petition No. 1659 (S/S) of 2005 Dinesh Kumar Tyagi & two others Versus State of Uttaranchal & two others Respondents …Petitioners … With 17- Writ Petition No. 1689 (S/S) of 2005 Cons. 278 C.P. Rakesh Kumar & three others … Petitioners Union of India & two others Respondents … Versus With 18- Writ Petition No. 1614 (S/S) of 2005 Janardan Singh & eleven others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 19- Writ Petition No. 1754 (S/S) of 2005 Cons. 55854 Krishna Kumar Singh & ten others Petitioners … Versus Union of India & three others …Respondents With 20- Writ Petition No. 1583 (S/S) of 2005 Cons. 40812 Jitendra Singh Yadav & Seventy two others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & three others Respondents … Sri Vivek Shukla, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 21- Writ Petition No. 3167 (S/S) of 2001 Kunwar Pal Singh & nine others …Petitioners Versus Union of India & two others …Respondents Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 22- Writ Petition No. 3202 (S/S) of 2001 Shamat Hussain & nine others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 23- Writ Petition No. 1608 (S/S) of 2005 Anirudha Kumar & sixteen others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 24- Writ Petition No. 1636 (S/S) of 2005 Sanjeev Kumar & eighteen others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & five others …Respondents Sri SC.Bhatt, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 25- Writ Petition No. 973 (S/S) of 2005 Satendra Singh & thirty six others Versus …Petitioners State of Uttaranchal & five others …Respondents With 26- Writ Petition No. 1182 (S/S) of 2005 Sanjeev Panwar & twenty six others Versus State of Uttaranchal & five others …Petitioners …Respondents With 27- Writ Petition No. 1201(S/S) of 2005 C.P. No. 55448 Manoj Kumar & fifteen others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & five others …Respondents With 28- Writ Petition No. 1660 (S/S) of 2005 Samar Pal & thirty six others Versus State of Uttaranchal & five others …Petitioners …Respondents Sri M.C. Pant, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 29- Writ Petition No. 1511 (S/S) of 2005 Jagdamba Prasad …Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & five others …….Respondents Sri B.D. Malhotra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 30- Writ Petition No. 1567 (S/S) of 2005 Parshu Ram Singh & twenty others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Sri Rajendra Singh, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 31- Writ Petition No. 1594 (S/S) of 2005 Lokendra Singh & two others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & six others …Respondents With 32- Writ Petition No. 1621 (S/S) of 2005 Sharad Kumar & three others …Petitioners State of Uttaranchal & six others …Respondents Versus With 33- Writ Petition No. 1656 (S/S) of 2005 Pawan Kumar & another …Petitioners State of Uttaranchal & six others …Respondents Versus Sri Amish Tewari, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 34- Writ Petition No. 1630 (S/S) of 2005 H.C. Davendra Kumar & twenty three others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal & five others …Respondents Sri N.S. Pundir, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 35- Writ Petition No. 1645 (S/S) of 2005 Const. Pradeep Bhatia & another …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus Sri Vipul Painuly, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 36- Writ Petition No. 1654 (S/S) of 2005 Madan Singh & four others …Petitioners Union of India & five others …Respondents Versus Sri M.C. Bansal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 37- Writ Petition No. 1670 (S/S) of 2005 Mahendra Pal Yadav & six others …Petitioners State of Uttaranchal & another …Respondents Versus Sri Lokpal Singh, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India With 38- Writ Petition No. 1690 (S/S) of 2005 Kuldeep Singh Rana & three others Versus …Petitioners Union of India & four others …Respondents With 39- Writ Petition No. 1550 (S/S) of 2005 Ravi Shanakar Devedi & twelve others …Petitioners Union of India & four others …Respondents Versus With 40- Writ Petition No. 1532(S/S) of 2005 Lajja Ram & eleven others …Petitioners Union of India & three others …Respondents Versus With 41- Writ Petition No. 1555 (S/S) of 2005 Amar Singh Chahar & thirteen others …Petitioners Union of India & four others …Respondents Versus Sri Parikshit Saini, Learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Harendra Belwal Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned counsel for the State of U.P. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel for Union of India Hon’ble Justice M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Dharm Veer Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel, Sri Vivek Shukla, Adv., Sri S.C. Bhatt, Adv., Sri M.C. Pant, Adv., Sri Nanak Chand Gupta, Adv., Sri B.D. Malhotra, Adv., Sri Rajendra Singh, Adv., Sri Amish Tewari, Adv. Sri N.S. Pundir, Adv., Sri Vipul Painuly, Adv., Sri M.C. Bansal, Adv., Sri Lokpal Singh, Adv., & Sri Parikshit Saini Learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Harendra Belwal, Learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttaranchal, Smt. Beena Pandey, Learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P. and Smt. Anjali Bhargava, Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India. All these writ petitions raises a common question of Law to be determined. Some of the petitioners are Constables/Head Constables and Sub Inspector in regular police in State of Uttaranchal some of the petitioners are Constables/Head Constables in P.A.C., some of the petitioners are Firemen / Block Organizers in Fire Services, some of the petitioners are in Home Guard duty, some of the petitioners are Radio Operators Tech. Wireless Department and some of them are Warden in Jails. Petitioners have submitted that they are permanent residents of State of Uttar Pradesh and when the State of Uttaranchal was created, they were posted in the hill districts of the then State of Uttar Pradesh and after creation of State of Uttaranchal they are still performing their duties in the State of Uttaranchal. Prior to creation of State of Uttaranchal, the Government had issued an order, by which options were invited from the Government servants that either to opt for the State of Uttar Pradesh or for the State of Uttaranchal. In pursuance of that G.O. the petitioners have opted for State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the State of Uttaranchal was created on 09.11.2000. More than five years have passed but the petitioners have not been relieved for State of Uttar Pradesh thus, the result is that on the one hand petitioners are not being considered for promotions to the higher posts in the State of Uttaranchal on the ground that they have opted for State of Uttar Pradesh and on the another hand, the State of Uttar Pradesh is also not considering them for promotion on the higher posts on the ground that they are not working in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioners have submitted that on 14thJuly 2004, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Uttar Pradesh has issued an order allotting the police personnel to State of Uttar Pradesh. Alongwith the aforesaid letter, a list was also annexed of those police personnel who are permanent residents of State of Uttar Pradesh and had opted for State of Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Uttaranchal has passed orders on dated 24.12.2004,

03.01.2005, 11.01.2005, 25.01.2005 and 27.01.2005 to relive the police personnel who are permanent residents of State of Uttar Pradesh and who have been allotted State of Uttar Pradesh. Submission of the petitioners is that in spite of all these orders, they are not being relieved to State of Uttar Pradesh. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, Learned Standing Counsel for Union of India has stated that Union of India has also published a final allocation list in respect of the police personnel allotted for State of Uttar Pradesh/ State of Uttaranchal. The State of Uttaranchal has filed counter affidavit in writ petition no. 1649 (SS) 05 Manak Chand and ors. Vs. Uttaranchal State and ors and also in some other petitions. In all the counter affidavits the only stand taken by the State of Uttaranchal is that since there is scarcity of police personnel, hence they are unable to relieve the police personnel. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that since as many as 4000 police personnel who are working in State of Uttar Pradesh have been allotted to State of Uttaranchal, but the State of Uttar Pradesh is not relieving them for State of Uttaranchal. Some of them have got stay orders from the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. Learned counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to the news reports published in a newspaper that State of Uttar Pradesh is not willing to relive the police personnel from state of Uttar Pradesh to State of Uttaranchal. The number of such police personnel is more than 4000. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that more than 2000 police personnel are to be relived from State of Uttaranchal. In case, State of Uttaranchal is not getting police personnel who have been allotted to state of Uttaranchal and the police personnel who are working in the State of Uttaranchal are relieved, then there will be the stage of lawlessness in view of the acute shortage of police personnel in the State of Uttaranchal which the State is already facing. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal has further submitted that the matter was also pleaded before the Union of India and it is expected, as published in the newspapers, that in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not ready to relieve the police personnel to the State of Uttaranchal, the State of Uttaranchal may be permitted to recruit the police personnel for providing effective administration of law and order in the State. No doubt, the State cannot be run without sufficient number of police personnel. The State of Uttaranchal is already suffering on account of shortage of police personnel and in case the State Authorities are directed to relieve the police personnel immediately, it will not be possible to run the Government. Learned counsel the petitioners have also submitted that the State of Uttaranchal is adopting pick and choose policy in reliving the police personnel. The Competent Authority is directed to fix reasoned criteria in accordance with law for relieving the police personnel to the State of Uttar Pradesh. In these circumstances, it will be just and proper to direct the respondent no. 5, i.e. Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi to settle the dispute of allocation and also to direct both the State Governments to relieve all the police personnel to the State, which is allotted to them at the earliest. The Director General of Police, Uttaranchal/ respondent no. 2 is also directed to relieve the petitioners as and when it is possible for the State. With these directions, all the writ petitions are finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) November 29,2005 Jain