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. R.NATARAJAN shall be treated as an employee of Uttar Pradesh.
7.Needless to say that he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits pursuant to his initial appointment in the year 1999. (KURIAN JOSEPH) (R. BANUMATHI) New Delhi; July 20, 2017.