WPSB/345/2014
2025 Latest Caselaw 3389 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/345/2014 on 30 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                         2025:UHC:5523-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.           or directions
      Date                                     COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.                and
               Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSB No.345 of 2014
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Sudhir Nainwal, Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Mr. Bhupesh Singh, Advocate holding brief Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

4. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in State Public Works Department in erstwhile State of U.P. At the time of State re-organization, he did not opt for State of Uttarakhand, therefore, he was allocated to State of U.P. State of Uttarakhand relieved him for joining duties in State of U.P. Thus, feeling aggrieved, he filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to relieve the petitioner treating him allocated to the Uttarakhand State, as per Judgment rendered in writ petition no.255/2008 (S/B) Khagendra Prasad Upereti & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors dated 10.05.2011 and further direct them to allow the petitioner to continue to work on their respective posts in the Uttarakhand State, as usual, and allow him for all service benefits."

5. Petitioner contended that his wife was serving as Teacher and she has been finally allotted to State of Uttarakhand. Furthermore, he is domicile of Uttarakhand, therefore, he is entitled for allotment to State of Uttarakhand.

2025:UHC:5523-DB

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during pendency of writ petition, petitioner retired in the year 2023, therefore, the relief as claimed in the writ petition, do not survive.

7. In view of the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.06.2025 30.06.2025

Rajni

RAJINI

2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac 3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,

GUSAIN postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4F C80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A 878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.06.30 21:47:03 -07'00' 2025:UHC:5523-DB