Allocation of Government Staff. What It Means? - The New Indian Express

Allocation of Government Staff. What It Means?

Published: 21st January 2014 08:24 AM

Last Updated: 21st January 2014 11:03 AM

It may not always be possible to allocate employees based on their options. This happens when there are more optees than posts available in a successor state. When less optees are available, employees are allocated to the successor States based on their ‘domicile against the rest of the posts.  If vacancies  still remained, employees are allocated on ‘juniority’ category in the reverse order of seniority.

Allocation on juniority basis and to some extent on the basis of domicile, created resentment amongst such employees, as they were forced to join a State against their willingness. This led to the filing of large number of court cases in various High Courts.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3307 of 2007 filed by Shri Indradeo Paswan Vs Union Government of India has upheld the principal laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bihar in the case of Shri Prakash Chandra Sinha V/s Union of India and Others (2003(4) J.C.R. 165) which inter alia states that unless the court is compelled to interfere on the basis of a clear illegality or Wednesbury  Unreasonableness (see box), the court should leave the allocation of personnel in various services as it was and that acceptance of individual grievances, unless clear cases are made out, would make allocation a never ending process and that would not be in the interests of the reorganized States or of the employees. At present, the allocation process in Uttar Pradesh has almost come to an end except for a few small departments and some deferred cases.

Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh

The allocation work has been completed in 2004 by issuing the final allocation orders of more than 1,60,000 employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.

To redress the grievances of 1867 petitioners, a committee was constituted in 2005 and its recommendations were implemented in 2006.

In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case filed by Shri B. R. Godbole and 89 other associated writ petitions, a committee was set up in 2007 under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, SR Division to look into the representations of individual employees who were not satisfied with their allocation. So far, 16 meetings of the committee took place and recommendations of the committee have been Implemented.

The meetings are held regularly to look into the grievances of petitioners in compliance of court’s order, SC/ST, physically handicapped, women employees, spouse and medical hardships cases etc.

Uttar Pradesh/Uttrakhand

A total of 10,98,000 personnel were to be allocated between the successor States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The SAC took a policy decision to issue orders of allocation only for these personnel who are allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand, whose number is approximately 1, 40,000. Out of this, 40,000 employees belonging to the Hill Sub Cadre were allocated to Uttarakhand by a single order dated 11.09.2001 since the hill districts, where the hill-cadre posts are located, went to Uttarakhand. The rest of the employees are deemed to be allocated to Uttar Pradesh. The task of the SAC, then has been to allocate 1,00,000 employees to Uttarakhand. The State Advisory Committee was initially set up in January 2001 with Shri G. N. Mehra, IAS(Retd.)(UP-1955) as its Chairman. The committee was given various extensions and had 80 meetings till it was discontinued w.e.f.

01.07.2010. Shri S.A.T. Rizvi, IAS(Retd.)(UP-1965) was the last chairman of the SAC. On the basis of the recommendations of the committee, final allocation orders have been issued by the Central Government in respect of 105 Departments/Sub-Departments. Final allocation orders are pending in respect of some small Departments / Sub-Departments including some deferred cases for which meetings are being held by the existing Advisory Committee headed by Joint Secretary(SR). The State Advisory Committee was not extended for a long time since March, 2007. To carry on with the pending work, a Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. S.K.

Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary, DoPT to consider the representations in connection with the allocation of the employees between the successor States of UP and Uttarakhand. The Committee was mandated to look into the representations received from the employees, department-wise where the allocation process has already been completed. However, this Committee also continued along with the new State Advisory Committee which was constituted in December, 2007.  After Dr. S.K. Sarkar became unavailable, another Committee was constituted in December, 2009 under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary in charge of SR Division.  This Committee is existing today and functioning in the absence of the State Advisory Committee which was discontinued with effect from 01-07-2010.

Bihar/Jharkhand

In Bihar, a total number of about 1,08,000 employees were to be bifurcated between the two successor States of Bihar and Jharkhand. Allocation orders of approximately 1,07,000 employees have been issued. Only a few disputed cases are still pending for allocation which are being considered. After completion of the term of the then Chairman, State Advisory Committee on 30.06.2008, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, SR Division, DoPT was constituted by the Central Government to consider the pending/deferred issues and grievances of the employees.

The meetings of the Committee are held regularly to look into the grievances of petitioners, SC/ST, physically handicapped, women employees, spouse and medical hardships cases etc.

What is Wednesbury unreasonableness?

A standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority’s decision. A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223).

comments powered by Disqus

Disclaimer: We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the NIE editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.


follow us Mobile Site iPad News Hunt Android RSS Tumblr Linekin Pinterest Youtube Google Plus Twitter Facebook