WPSB/115/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 929 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                                          AND
                      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 115 OF 2023
                              06TH APRIL, 2023
BETWEEN:
Dinesh Chandra Dhasmana                                           .....Petitioner.
And

Principal Secretary, Dairy Development & others

                                                                   ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, proxy counsel for Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to assail the order dated 03.03.2014, passed by the

Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim

Petition No.69 of 2011, as well as the order dated

24.06.2019, passed in the aforesaid claim petition by the

same Tribunal, whereby the recall application preferred by

the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was serving as an employee of the

U.P. Dairy Development Department. He was posted as

Government Milk Supervisor in Gopeshwar, District Chamoli.

In the year 1994, disciplinary proceedings were commenced

against him. After completion of the Departmental Inquiry,

the petitioner was terminated by the State of Uttar Pradesh

vide order dated 05.12.1996. The petitioner challenged his

termination before the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal

by filing Claim Petition No.2434/1997. Upon creation of the

State of Uttaranchal (which was later on renamed as

"Uttarakhand"), the said claim petition was transferred by

virtue of Section 91 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act,

2000, to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and was

re-numbered as 41 of 2005. The said claim petition was

disposed of by the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal on

21.07.2009, by permitting the petitioner to file a Department

Appeal before the State of Uttar Pradesh. That appeal was

rejected by the State of U.P. vide order dated 15.07.2011.

Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Claim Petition

No.69 of 2011 before the Uttarakhand Public Services

Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that it had no

territorial jurisdiction in the matter, since the petitioner was a

servant of State of Uttar Pradesh, and he had never been

absorbed or transferred as an employee of the State of

Uttarakhand, since he had already been dismissed from

service before the creation of State of Uttarakhand in the

year 2000.

3. The recall application was also rejected by the

Tribunal, as aforesaid.

4. The submission of Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioner is that, by virtue of Section 91 of the Act, the

Tribunal in the State of Uttarakhand had jurisdiction. It is for

this reason that the claim petition preferred by the petitioner

before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal was transferred to the

Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, and re-numbered as 41

of 2005. The said claim petition was disposed of on

21.07.2009.

5. Mr. Kumar further submits that, therefore, the

claim petition was again maintainable before the Uttarakhand

Public Services Tribunal even in relation to the order passed

by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's

departmental appeal on 15.07.2011.

6. Mr. Kumar has also placed reliance on the

judgment dated 25.09.2018, passed by a Division Bench of

this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No.436 of 2015, where this

Court held that a claim petition, which stood transferred to

the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, by virtue of Section

91 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, could not be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

7. We have considered the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders.

8. There is no denial of fact that the petitioner was an

employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh. His services were

terminated while he was still serving as an employee of the

State of Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.1996. He preferred the claim

petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal.

9. By invoking Section 91 of the U.P. Reorganization

Act, the proceedings were transferred to the Uttarakhand

Public Services Tribunal, and re-numbered as 41 of 2005.

10. At this stage, we may take note of Section 91 of

the U.P. Reorganization Act. Sub-section (1) thereof is

relevant, and the same reads as follows:-

"Section 91(1) Every proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day before a court (other than High Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which on that day falls within the State of Uttar Pradesh shall, if it is a proceeding relating exclusively to the territory, which as from that day are the territories of Uttaranchal State, stand transferred to the corresponding court, tribunal, authority, or officer of that State".

(emphasis supplied)

11. A perusal of the said provision shows that only

those proceedings, relating 'exclusively' to the territory of

Uttarakhand, were liable to be transferred to the

corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority, or Officer in the

State of Uttarakhand, and not other proceedings.

12. The petitioner was in service of the Dairy

Development Department, Uttar Pradesh, and he was in a

transferrable post. He could be posted at any location within

the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it existed before its

reorganization. Merely because he was posted at the relevant

time in Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, it could not be said that

the proceedings initiated by him before the U.P. Public

Services Tribunal related exclusively to the territory of

Uttarakhand. In fact, the transfer of claim petition to the

Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal was, therefore, not even

called for, in the first instance.

13. In any event of the matter, Section 91 of the Act

only deals with the aspect of transfer of pending proceedings.

Mere transfer of pending proceedings would not change the

status of the petitioner as an erstwhile employee of the State

of U.P. He never became an employee of the State of

Uttarakhand. Even the appellate order has been passed by

the State of Uttar Pradesh. In respect of the order dated

15.07.2011, Section 91 of the Act cannot be invoked, as

Section 91 only deals with pending proceedings, as on the

date of reorganization of the State of U.P.

14. That being the position, in our view, the Tribunal

was right in concluding that it had not territorial jurisdiction in

the matter.

15. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned orders.

16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

17. However, in terms of the directions issued by the

Tribunal, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the

Competent Court/ Tribunal in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

18. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.) Dated: 06th April, 2023 NISHANT