Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the consensual transfer and absorption of personal assistants from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand after State reorganisation. The High Court overlooked Central guidelines, the terms of their appointment letters and the mutual consent of both States. Their appointment after the statutory allocation cut-off did not invalidate this separately permitted transfer arrangement. The High Court’s contrary orders were set aside.
Issues
- Whether employees appointed after the reorganisation date could validly be transferred to Uttarakhand with the consent of both States under the Central Government’s directions and guidelines.
Provisions considered
- Section 77, Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000The Central Government could issue binding directions to give effect to the service-related provisions. Its guidelines and subsequent permission for mutual-consent transfers were relevant to assessing the appellants’ position. (¶¶ 10, 17–20)
Held
- The High Court overlooked the Central guidelines dealing with completed selections and the appointment letters expressly permitting allocation to either successor State. It focused only on whether a statutory provision authorised an interstate transfer, without considering the actual arrangement and consent. (¶¶ 10, 18–19)
- Although the appellants were appointed after the statutory allocation cut-off, the Central Government’s communication permitted the States to resolve their position by mutual action. Both States consented to transfer and absorption, and the employees had continued to serve Uttarakhand under that arrangement. (¶¶ 6–7, 14–15, 19–20)
- There was no infirmity in the procedure adopted by both States for these mutually agreed transfers, as contemplated by the Central Government’s letter of 15 September 2004. The High Court’s judgment and review order were set aside without costs. (¶ 19–21)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and review order set aside. Consensual transfer and absorption in Uttarakhand upheld, without costs.