Arvind Kumar Gupta vs Principal Secretary, M/O H.
- SCC(2018) 11 SCC 560
- Neutral2017 INSC 651
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a civil servant allocated to one State following bifurcation has rendered long and uninterrupted service in another State on personal grounds and has continued there continuously since the allocation, the employee should not be disturbed from that State at a later stage and shall be treated as an employee of that State for all purposes, with all consequential benefits pursuant to his initial appointment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9390 OF 2013
ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE UTTARAKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2) The appellant has been pursuing his grievance with regard
to allocation of his services pursuant to the bifurcation of
the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh
Re-Organisation Act, 2000.
3) At the relevant time, he was working as a Drug Inspector.
Though he was allotted to Uttarakhand, he wanted to continue in
Uttar Pradesh on personal grounds. Ever since such allocation
in 2007, he has been continuing in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
4) Since the appellant has rendered long and uninterrupted
service in the State of Uttar Pradesh, we do not think that, at
this stage, the appellant should be disturbed. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 5) Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. R.NATARAJAN Date: 2017.07.22 12:35:35 IST
6) We make it very clear that for all purposes, the appellant Reason:
shall be treated as an employee of Uttar Pradesh. 2
7) Needless to say that he shall be entitled to all the
consequential benefits pursuant to his initial appointment in
the year 1999.
.......................... J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)
.......................... J. (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi;
July 20, 2017.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free