Supreme Court of India
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO)versusANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO (S). 1270/2020 IN
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 680
- Decided
- 7 December 2020
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the One‑Man Committee’s allocation is final, binding on both states, the utilities and the employees, and cannot be challenged, and that there is no error in the reciprocity or the directions issued.
Summary
The dispute arose after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, when the Telangana power utilities unilaterally transferred 1,157 employees to Andhra Pradesh utilities, prompting writ petitions. The High Court set aside the unilateral relief and directed a neutral allocation, which the Supreme Court upheld and appointed a One‑Man Committee to determine the modalities under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Committee prepared a Final Report, a Supplementary Report and a Concluding Report, allocating 655 employees from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh and an equal number in the opposite direction, with special provisions for retirees, spouses and medical cases. Numerous miscellaneous applications challenged the Committee’s allocation, the reciprocity principle, and specific directions such as the removal of employees turning 58 in 2020. The Supreme Court held that the One‑Man Committee’s allocation is final, binding, and not open to further challenge, finding no error in the reciprocity or the directions, and dismissed all the miscellaneous applications.
Issues considered
- The validity and finality of the One‑Man Committee’s allocation of employees under Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
- Whether the reciprocity of 655 employees transferred each way is permissible.
- Whether the direction to exclude employees attaining 58 years of age in 2020 can be modified.
- Whether any employee or utility can challenge the Committee’s allocation in any forum.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014s. 2(h), s. 3, s. 4, s. 53, s. 82
Subjects
employee allocationservice lawpublic sector undertakingsinter‑state reorganisationOne‑Man Committeereciprocity principlenativity principleSection 82Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act
Judgment
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 987 987
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION A
CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO)
v.
ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION
CORPORATION LTD.
B
Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1270/2020
In
(Civil Appeal No (s). 11435/2018)
DECEMBER 07, 2020.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] C
Service Law – Allocation of employees – Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014 – ss.3,4 and 82 – Dispute relating to
allocation of the employees of the power sector undertakings in the
States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh arose in wake of the
division of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, D
namely, the State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra
Pradesh – The power utilities of the two newly formed States could
not arrive at any consensus with regard to modalities for allocation
and distribution of personnel – The power utilities of Telangana
unilaterally relieved 1157 employees working with power utilities
E
of Telangana to join in respective power utilities of Andhra Pradesh
– The power utilities of Telangana were motivated by principle of
nativity, i.e., those employees whose service records mentioned them
as resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh
were relieved and those who belonged to territory of the newly
formed State of Telangana were permitted to join at Telangana by F
their self-option, against which writ petition was filed before the
High Court – The High Court by its judgment dated 02.02.2018
allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned action of power
utilities of Telangana relieving 1157 employees and issued further
directions – In appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of
G
the High Court and with the agreement of the parties entrusted the
task to one-Man Committee for distributing the personnel between
the States – The process which was initiated by submitting Final
Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by Supplementary
Report dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020
– In the Concluding Report, an allocation list submitted by Andhra H
987
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A Pradesh utilities was approved – The Committee noticed that 655
employees were allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh
and equal numbers from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including
71 names from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, which was held to be
of special cases like spouse and medical cases – Certain further
directions were given by the One-Man Committee along with the
B
concluding report – Various Miscellaneous applications were filed
– There were various objections against the One-Man Committee
report – Held: The One-Man Committee being aware of all objections
and having taken a conscious decision to finalise the allocation
between two States, there is no error in the process which may
C warrant any clarification or direction – Applicants have taken
exception to reciprocity of 655 number – There is no error in
reciprocity – The One-Man Committee took a decision that when
655 employees are coming from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh,
same number should go from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State –
In the Concluding Report, final list was annexed, which is utility-
D
wise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous – Thus,
power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and
implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.
Service Law – Allocation of employees – Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisaiton Act, 2014 – ss.3,4 and 82 – Challenge to allocation
E done by One-Man Committee – Held: In the instant case, the One-
Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnel
between the two States, which distribution has been finalised by the
One-Man Committee – Insofar as the allocation made by the One-
Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or
F officer is entertainable, it was further clarified that the One-Man
Committee having completed the process of allocation, the said
allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any
utility before any forum.
Disposing of the Miscellaneous Applications, the Court
G HELD: 1. One objection of the applicants, which needs to
be noticed is the objection that even the Concluding Report dated
20.06.2020 is not final report and Sub-Committee Member of
Andhra Pradesh has been authorised to modify the list. Applicants
have referred to direction Nos. I, II and III of the Concluding
H Report. Now, taking note of the direction No.I of the One-Man
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 989
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.
Committee that those who have attained or will be attaining 58 A
Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation
process and their names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.
According to the Supplementary report, both the parties had
agreed before the One-Man Committee that all retired employees
between years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility in each State
B
need not be displaced. Thus, the above was agreement between
both the parties before the One-Man Committee and direction
No.I only an extension of the said agreement, i.e., whoever shall
be attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall be kept out of allocation
process. As per paragraph 21 of the Supplementary Report, those,
who retire till then were already kept out of the allocation and C
the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be said to be
unreasonable. The allocation process being not yet finalised and
awaiting finalisation for last several years, those who retire either
in Telangana State or Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decided
not to be displaced only for the purpose of shouldering pensionary
D
liability. The direction No.I is equitable. [Paras 48, 49 and
50][1025-A-B, F-G; 1026-A-C]
2. The applicants submitted that after the Concluding
Report dated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020, Andhra
Pradesh power utilities have struck 119 names from the incoming
655 list from the Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh E
power utilities. This Court is of the view that the said dropping is
only consequential to the decision of the One-Man Committee
as reflected in paragraph 21 of Supplementary Report and
direction No.I of Concluding Report. The Andhra Pradesh power
utilities have also deleted 50 names from the list of 584 employees F
outgoing from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State
power utilities, which was again in compliance of the One-Man
Committee’s decision. Any consequential action taken in
pursuance of the Concluding Report cannot be said to be not
contemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannot be said
to be an open ended report. The consequence of Concluding G
Report has to be taken to its logical ends. Further, 10 employees
have been added by direction Nos. II and the reasons have been
given in the letter dated 26.06.2020 for relieving them, which is
again consequence of direction Nos.I and II. This Court, thus, is
of the view that the One-Man Committee has considered all H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A materials and objections placed before it by both sides including
the representation of the employees and employees organisations
submitted from time to time. The process which was initiated by
submitting Final Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by
Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report
dated 20.06.2020. The One-Man Committee being aware of all
B
objections and having taken a conscious decision to finalise the
allocation between two States, this Court does not find any such
error in the process which may warrant any clarification or
direction by this Court. This Court may further notice that the
exercise undertaken by the One-Man Committee is to allocate
C 655 from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and same number
from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Apart from the above
two allocations, other personnel, who were working in Telangana
State and Andhra Pradesh were not disturbed by allocation.
[Para 51][1026-D-H; 1027-A-B]
D 3. The applicants have also taken exception to reciprocity
of 655 number. This Court does not find that there is any error in
reciprocity. The One-Man Committee took a decision that when
655 employees are coming from Telangana State to Andhra
Pradesh, same number should go from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana State. In the Concluding Report, final list has been
E annexed, which is utility-wise and personnel-wise, which is clear
and unambiguous. This Court, thus, does not find any merit in
the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State power
utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which are
dismissed. [Para 52][1027-B-D]
F 4. With regard to other M.A.s, this Court makes it clear
that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution
of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been
finalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocation
made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by
G any employee or officer is entertainable, this Court clarifies that
the One-Man Committee having completed the process of
allocation, the said allocation cannot be challenged by any
employee or officer or any utility before any forum. Insofar as
other claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in different
M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings and
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 991
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.
employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims A
before appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s
are disposed of accordingly. [Para 57][1029-B-C]
Telangana Judges Association v. Union of India (2018)
SCC Online SC 1729 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application B
No. 1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 of the Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018.
With C
Miscellaneous Application No (s).1286/2020 in Civil Appeal
No (s). 11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application….Diary No. 13844/2020
in Civil Appeal No (s).11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s).
1287/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application
No (s). 1290/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11436/2018, Miscellaneous D
Application No (s). 1292/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11438/2018,
Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1331/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11435/
2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1291/2020 in Civil Appeal
No (s). 11437/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1289/2020 in Civil
Appeal No (s). 11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s).
1293/2020 in Civil Appeal No(s).11440/2018, Miscellaneous E
Application…Diary No.16612/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s). 11435/2018,
Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1631/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).
11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application Diary No.19295/2020 in Civil
Appeal No (s). 11453/2018, Miscellaneous Application….Diary No.
19982/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s). 11453/2018. F
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Mukul Rohatgi, V. Giri, G. Vidyasagar,
Vivek K Tankha, Vinay Navare, Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi,
R. Balasubramanian, P.V. Surendranath, P.S. Narasimha, Rana
Mukherjee, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., D. Abhinav
Rao, Harsh Parashar, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, Sandeep
G
Sudhakar Deshmukh, Sachin Sharma, Ms. Sujata Bagadhi, Venkateswara
Rao Anumolu, Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala, Deepak Kumar Singh, Sravan
Kumar, Gautam Singh, Krishna Kumar Singh, Subhash Chandran KR,
Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Ms. Sindoora,
R. Balaji, Hitendra Nath Rath, Srijan Sinha, Himanshu Chaubey,
Ashwarya Sinha, Puneet Jain, Nishant Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma, H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A Deepak Joshi, Akash Lamba, Wazir Singh Malik, B.V. Balram Das, Ms.
Nachiketa Joshi, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,
Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Amitabh
Sinha, Shrey Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rajat Nair, Apoorv Kurup,
V. Sridhar Reddy, Sunder Khatri, Abhijit Sengupta, P. Venkat Reddy,
Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy for M/S. Venkat Palwai Law
B
Associates, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed in Civil
C Appeal No.11435 of 2018 decided by this Court vide judgment dated
28.11.2018. Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 was filed against the common
judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
in Writ Petition No.17994 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions.
D 2. The High Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 decided the
bunch of writ petitions raising the dispute pertaining to allocation of the
employees of the power sector undertakings in the States of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh. The disputes arose in the wake of the division of
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, namely, the State
E of Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh by Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. This Court vide its judgment dated
28.11.2018 while upholding the judgment of the High Court with the
agreement of the learned counsel for the parties appointed a One-Man
Committee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge
of this Court for distributing the personnel between two States. After
F the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2018, One-Man Committee
proceeded to formulate the modalities for distributing the personnel,
prepared the reports allocating the personnel at several stages. The
miscellaneous applications were filed in this Court in the civil appeal in
pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court in its judgment dated
G 28.11.2018 permitting the parties to approach the Court by filing an
interlocutory application, if any, clarification or further directions were
required.
3. The present set of miscellaneous applications have been filed
by Telangana Power Utilities, certain employees and employees’
associations after submission of the concluding report dated 20.06.2020
H
by the One-Man Committee.
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 993
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
4. Before we proceed to consider the present set of miscellaneous A
applications, it is necessary to notice the genesis of dispute.
5. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisaiton Act, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act, 2014”) was enacted by Parliament to provide for
the reorganisation of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters
connected therewith. By Section 3, Telangana State was formed B
comprising of the territories mentioned therein and by virtue of Section
4, the State of Andhra Pradesh was to comprise the territories of the
existing state of Andhra Pradesh. In the present case, we are concerned
only with power utilities. Related provision for employees of public sector
undertaking is contained in Section 82, which is to the following effect:-
C
“82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings,
etc.—On and from the appointed day, the employees of State
Public Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomous
bodies shall continue to function in such undertaking, corporation
or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this
period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities D
for distributing the personnel between the two successor States.”
6. 02.06.2014 was notified as the appointed date under the Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. In the United State of Andhra
Pradesh, existing power utilities where Andhra Pradesh Generation
Corporation, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation and four Power E
Distribution Companies described as Eastern, Southern, Central and
Northern DISCOMS. The State of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh issued
Government Orders dated 29.05.2014, No.24 for Distribution Companies,
Government Order No.25 for Generation Companies and Government
Order No.26 for Transmission Corporation whereby assets and liabilities F
of the aforesaid corporations and companies were apportioned between
the two new States alongwith the posts sanctioned for the employees
working in those power sector corporations/companies. The power
utilities of the two newly formed States could not arrive at any consensus
with regard to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel.
G
7. The power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved 1157
employees working with power utilities of Telangana to join in respective
power utilities of Andhra Pradesh. Number of employees filed writ
petitions in High Court challenging the decision of the power utilities of
Telangana. 242 employees, who were working in power utilities of Andhra
Pradesh got themselves relieved and joined in power utilities of H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A Telangana. The power utilities of Telangana were motivated by principle
of nativity, i.e., those employees whose service records mentioned them
as resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh were
relieved and those who belonged to territory of the newly formed State
of Telangana were permitted to join at Telangana by their self-option,
against which writ petition was filed before the High Court. The High
B
Court by its common judgment dated 02.02.2018 allowed the writ petitions,
set aside the impugned action of power utilities of Telangana relieving
1157 employees and issued further directions. The High Court specifically
disapproved the principle of nativity, which was the factor for allocation
of the employees by the Telangana State power utilities.
C 8. Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited filed Civil
Appeal No. 11435/2018 questioning the judgment of High Court. This
Court upheld the order of the High Court, however, noticing that two
States have not been able to arrive at any consensus and to finally
determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two States,
D this Court with the agreement of the parties entrusted the task to One-
Man Committee, i.e., Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of
this Court. While ending the order dated 28.11.20218, this Court further
clearly stated:-
“We make it clear that the decision of the one man
E Committee head by Justice Dharmadhikari shall be final and binding
on all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the two
States as well as the employees and shall be executed by all the
parties as an order of this Court.”
9. This Court, however, while disposing the appeal had observed
F that in case, any clarification or further direction is required by any of
the parties they are entitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutory
application in the proceedings. One-Man Committee constituted a sub-
Committee consisting of two members representing one each of the
power utilities of both the States. Many employees, individuals also
appeared and filed representations before the Committee. The Committee
G on 17.04.2019 had finalised XIV modalities to be adopted for allocation
of the personnel between two States in accordance with Section 82 of
the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Telangana Power
Generation Corporation Limited filed an application being M.A. No. 851
of 2019 questioning the modalities finalised by One-Man Committee.
H However, this Court did not entertain the application. A report cited as
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 995
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
“Final Report of One-Man Committee” dated 26.12.2019 was submitted A
by One-Man Committee. Alongwith report, a final allocation list in the
two States corporations/companies was prepared and annexed. List of
655 personnel, who were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh
utilities as submitted by sub-Committee Members on behalf of Telangana
utilities was approved by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee and was
B
part of the final list. The Andhra Pradesh utilities being felt aggrieved by
the final list communicated in the final report filed I.A. Nos. 11779/2020,
11752/2020 and 11785/2020. It was stated by learned counsel for the
applicant that they have no grievance with regard to modalities. Their
submission was that the modalities have not been correctly implemented
and the list annexed is not in accordance with the modalities. The C
applications were disposed of by this Court on 24.01.2020. This Court
while disposing the applications made following observations:-
“This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the work
of allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, the
modalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all, to D
which, there is no dissension between the parties. There being no
dispute regarding modalities, in event, there is some error or
mistake in the working of the modalities that can be pointed out to
the same committee by means of a representation and we hope
and trust that the committee shall look into the said grievance and
correct the error, if any. We also make it clear that if the E
representation is submitted by the applicant, copy of the same
shall be given to the power utilities of both the Sates, who may
also have liberty to submit a response to those representation,
which may be considered by the one man committee. The
representation be submitted within two weeks and response thereto F
be also submitted within two weeks thereafter.”
10. After the order dated 24.01.2020, the One-Man Committee
after deliberations with all stakeholders submitted a Supplementary Report
dated 11.03.2020. In the Supplementary Report, it was noticed that T.S.
power utilities relieved employees numbering total 655 to join A.P. power G
utilities. It also noted that Telangana Power Utilities are agreeable to
accommodate 71 employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State
companies as they are special cases like of spouses, medical and
handicapped employees or their dependants.
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A 11. In the Supplementary Report, the One-Man Committee
entrusted the work to the member of the Sub-Committee representing
Andhra Pradesh side, of identification of 584 employees for allocating
them from A.P. power utilities to T.S. power utilities. One-Man Committee
also issued directions for payment of salary for 655 employees, who
were relieved from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh. One-Man
B
Committee directed that entire allocation process based on the allocation
lists with the Final Report and Supplementary Report be completed by
30.03.2020. A clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by the One-
Man Committee. Aggrieved by Supplementary Report, the Telangana
power utilities filed Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2020. With
C regard to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified by Sub-
Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh, this Court disposed of the
application observing that objections with regard to 584 employees were
to be considered by One Man Committee. On an application submitted
by One-Man Committee, this Court also passed an order for payment of
salary to the allocated employees.
D
12. One-Man Committee after the order of this Court dated
01.05.2020 issued a Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. In the
Concluding Report, an allocation list submitted by Andhra Pradesh utilities
was approved. The Committee noticed that 655 employees have been
allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and equal numbers
E from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including 71 names from Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases like spouse
and medical cases. Certain further directions were given by the One-
Man Committee in the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approving
the list of Sub-Committee Members of the Andhra Pradesh. In the
F Concluding Report, directions are to the following effect:-
DIRECTIONS
I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21 of the
Supplementary Report of this Committee regarding retired
employees on both sides, it is further directed, that in both
G the States, employees who have attained or will be attaining
58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the
allocation process and their names in the Allocation Lists
will be removed.
II. In the allocation process of the present dimension and
H undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 997
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts and A
service prospects of every employee. The allocation process
has been finalized on laid down principles contained in the
modalities and elbow room, wherever permissible, in the
modalities has been given effect to. The committee however
directs the Sub Committee member of AP to re-examine
B
any left out spouse and medical cases and every attempt
should be made to accommodate them in the state of their
option.
III. All SC/ST employees cases be re-examined to accommodate
them as per modality VIII in the State where they are
notified as SCs or STs so as not to affect their future service C
growth.
IV. All the employees finally allocated to a Public Utility will be
paid regular salary from January 2020 and arrears of salary
due with other benefits attached to the posts. The payments
of salary partly or fully made by the Companies in the Two D
States in the interim period pending finalization of allocation
during coronavirus pandemic, will be shared/reimbursed by
the companies in the Two States mutually by paying and
claiming reimbursement, if necessary, for the payments
made in the interim period. It is made clear that the entire E
burden of salary and arrears of salary for each employee
would be on the Company to which the employee is finally
allocated and the said Company will reimburse interim
payments pending allocation made if any by the Company
to which the employee has not been finally allocated.
F
V. All employees not included in the Allocation List of AP and
TS and serving on “order to serve” basis in the Companies
on the formation of the Two States in 2014 would be deemed
to have been allocated to the Company where they are
presently posted and working.
G
VI. Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP utilities will
issue orders of posting and joining, with granting sufficient
time to the employees to report for duties, keeping into
consideration the constrains on movements in the current
coronavirus pandemic period and the consequent lockdown
imposed. H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A VII. All Employers of the Power Utilities in the Two States will
facilitate smooth posting and joining of employees in the
Companies of the Two States and the Government and the
Police Authorities of Two States will cooperate and also
facilitate the movement of the employees allocated from
one Company in the State to Company in another Slate.
B
VIII. The allocation finally made by this committee is binding on
both the employers and the employees and any violation
thereof and non implementation of said allocation be reported
to Supreme Court for remedial/Punitive action.”
C 13. After the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, a member of
the Sub-Committee of Andhra Pradesh power utilities sent a letter dated
26.06.2020 as compliance report. By the said letter, 119 employees, who
were dropped from the list of incoming employees from Telangana State
power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities and further 50 names
were dropped of employees in outgoing list of employees from Andhra
D Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities and 10 further
employees were relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for the
reasons mentioned therein.
14. After the submission of the Concluding Report and follow-up
action taken by the Andhra Pradesh power utilities, this group of
E miscellaneous applications have been filed. The miscellaneous applications
have been filed by Telangana State power utilities, by several employees
as well as employees’ associations in M.A. No. 1286/2020 filed by
Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd., a common counter
affidavit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The M.A.
F No. 1286 of 2020 as well as counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit
filed therein shall be referred to while deciding these batch of
miscellaneous applications.
15. We may now briefly notice prayers made in different
Miscellaneous Applications placed before us for consideration:-
G M.A. No. 1270/2020
M.A. No. 1270 of 2020 is a miscellaneous application which was
registered by Court’s Motion on Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020
sent by One-Man Committee to this Court.
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 999
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
M.A. DIARY NO. 13844/2020 A
This M.A. Diary has been filed by T.N. Sudhakara Murthy and
32 others seeking a direction to A.P. and T.S. utilities not to give effect
to direction No.I of the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. They seek
direction to A.P. power utilities to retain the applicants as per their options.
M.A. NO. 1286/2020 B
M.A. No.1286 of 2020 has been filed by Telangana State Power
Generation Corporation Ltd. The M.A. questions the Concluding Report
dated 20.06.2020 submitted by One-Man Committee. In the M.A.
following prayers have been made:-
C
“a) Clarify that the Concluding Report dated 20-06-2020 submitted
by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee is illegal and arbitrary, being
contrary to the Orders passed by this Hon’ble court and the Final
Report dated 26-12-2019 submitted by the Hon’ble One-Man
Committee.
D
b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees and 242 employees
made by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee as per Final Report
dt. 26-12-2018, (i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502 +242) to TS Power
Utilities and 655 from TS to AP Power utilities), as Final in terms
of the Order dt. 28.11.2018 passed in present Civil Appeal.
E
c) Clarify that the allocation of 4460 and 71 employees (4531) to
TS Power Utilities vide Final Report dt. 26.12.2019 and
Supplementary Report dt. 11.03.2020, is final and no further
allocation to TS Power Utilities is Permissible.
d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far as Para No.27,
F
authorizing the Member, Sub-committee of AP to unilaterally
identify and allocate 584 employees to TS Power Utilities is
contrary to the orders dated 28-11-2018 in Civil Appeal No.11435/
2018.
e) Clarify the orders dated 28-11-2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11435
of 2018 passed by this Hon’bIe Court; and G
f) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and
appropriate by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.”
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A M.A. NO.1287/2020
This M.A. has been filed by APSPDCL relieved employees
(allotted to TSNPDCL). The applicants claimed to be permanent
employees of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company
now allocated to Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company
B Ltd. The applicants question their allotment to TSNPDCL. The applicants
case is that they were not included in the employees allocated by Final
Report dated 26.12.2019. Their names have suddenly come in Concluding
Report for allocation. The applicants claimed that allocation of employees
of APSPDCL working in Kurnool and Ananthapur Districts were to be
finally allocated in terms of G.O. No.24 dated 29.05.2014 and they ought
C not to have been made part of the allocation to Telangana power utilities.
The applicants prayed that their allocation to TSNPDCL be cancelled.
They prayed that letter dated 26.06.2020 submitted by APSPDCL to
One-Man Committee and approved by One-Man Committee by
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 be got recalled and rescinded.
D M.A. NO. 1290/2020
This M.A. has been filed by Transmission Corporation of
Telangana Ltd. The prayers made in the application are similar to those
made in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.
E M.A. NO. 1292/2020
This M.A. has been filed by Telangana Southern Power
Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TSSPDCL). The prayers made in this
M.A. are similar to those made in M.A. No. 1286 of 2020.
M.A. NO. 1331/2020
F
This M.A. has been filed by the Telangana Power Generation
Corporation Ltd. (TSGENCO). The prayers made in the application
are similar to prayers made in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.
M.A. NO. 1291/2020
G This M.A. has been filed by Telangana State Northern Power
Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TSNPDCL). The prayers made in the
application are similar as made in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.
M.A. NO. 1289/2020
This M.A. has been filed by Transmission Corporation of
H Telangana Ltd. (TSTRANSCO). The applicants’ case is that they have
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1001
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
been working throughout in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The A
applicants’ names have been included in the list of 584 employees
allocated by Andhra Pradesh power utilities to be allocated to Telangana
power utilities. In pursuance of the Supplementary Report, the applicants
claimed to be relieved w.e.f. 14.03.2020 but were not permitted to join
by Telangana power utilities. The list of 584 employees submitted by
B
Andhra Pradesh power utilities have been approved by One-Man
Committee in the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The applicants
prayed that Supplementary report and Concluding Report be modified
and revised directing the respondents to accommodate the applicants in
Andhra Pradesh power utilities.
M.A. NO. 1293/2020 C
This M.A. has been filed by Telangana Electricity Engineers
Association & Ors. The applicants take exception to the Concluding
Report of the One-Man Committee. The applicants prayed that allocation
be restricted till Supplementary Report only by rejecting the Concluding
Report. In the M.A. applicants prayed for confirmation of allocation of D
1157 employees and 242 employees made by One-Man Committee
Report dated 26.12.2019. The applicants also had pleaded that the Final
Report, Supplementary Report and Concluding Report are contradictory
to each other and are irreconcilable to the extent it goes beyond 1157
employees. E
M.A. DIARY NO. 16612/2020
This M.A. Diary has been filed by Ande Jagdish and three other
Engineers seeking a direction to TSTRANSCO and APTRANSCO to
pay pension/salary to the applicants. The applicants seek direction to
implement the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One-Man F
Committee. The applicant also prays for being impleaded in Civil Appeal
No.11435/2018.
M.A. NO. 1631/2020
This M.A. has been filed by L. Praveenkumar Reddy and seven
G
other Engineers praying for a direction to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
State utilities not to give effect the direction No.I of the Concluding
Report submitted by One-Man Committee. The applicants also prayed
for a direction to A.P. power utilities to retain the applicants as per their
options.
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A M.A. DIARY NO.19295/2020
This M.A. Diary No.19295 of 2020 has been filed by Kesana
Babu Rao & 36 Ors., who claimed to be employees continued in services
on the rolls of TSGENCO till 04.01.2020 where after they were relieved
in pursuance of Final Report dated 26.12.2019 of the One-Man
B Committee. The applicants claimed that they have been denied payment
of certain amounts like SGP Increments, Annual Increments, Generation
Incentives, House Rent Allowance, Conveyance allowance, Promotions
and Promotion increments, 24x7 power supply increments etc. The
applicants claimed that their further re-allotment, who presently stand
allotted to Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited as
C per the Final Report dated 26.12.2019, the Supplementary Report dated
11.03.2020 and the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One-
Man Committee.
M.A. DIARY NO.19982/2020
D This application has been filed by J.V.V. Suresh Kumar and Others
seeking similar prayers as made in M.A. Diary No.19295 of 2020.
16. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi,
Shri V. Giri, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Telangana State power utilities. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior
E counsel has appeared on behalf of Andhra Pradesh power utilities.
Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel has appeared for Telangana
Electricity Engineers Association. We have also heard Shri
R. Balasubramanian and Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned senior counsel.
Shri Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala and other learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
F
17. We now proceed to notice the submissions advanced by learned
senior counsel appearing for Telangana power utilities. It is submitted
that under the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2018 in Civil Appeal
No.11435/2018, One-Man Committee had to confine the allocation to
1157 employees only. In the Final Report dated 26.12.2019, out of 1157
G employees, 655 were allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities and
502 to Telangana State power utilities and after allocation, no further
steps were required to be taken by One-Man Committee regarding
further allocation. The One-Man Committee has exceeded the mandate
of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020 and substantially expanded the
exercise of allocation of employees by giving completely go-bye to Final
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1003
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
Report dated 26.12.2019 and modalities finalised. The ratio of 3552:2550 A
as given in the Concluding Report with regard to employees of Andhra
Pradesh power utilities and Telangana power utilities respectively is not
prescribed by Government Order Nos. 24, 25 and 26 except in respect
of headquarter posts. The number of total employees, i.e., 6102 as
mentioned in the Concluding Report is erroneous. The figure of 6102
B
employees does not take into account the employees working in two
distribution companies of Telangana, i.e., TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL.
The Telangana State power utilities were already allocated 502 out of
1157+242+71 employees as per Supplementary Report and addition of
further 584 employees as per the Concluding Report is excessive and
uncalled for. The Concluding Report of the One-Man Committee has C
given a complete go-bye to the modalities, which were formulated and
approved by this Court. One-Man Committee erred in accepting the
stand of Andhra Pradesh power utilities that allocation of 655 employees
proposed by Telangana State power utilities should be on a condition of
reciprocity by the Telangana State utilities in accepting equal number of
D
655 employees from Andhra Pradesh power utilities. Reciprocity was
not prescribed in the modalities given by One-Man Committee as
approved by this Court. One-Man Committee erred in deviating from
modalities by issuing the Concluding Report and allocation of employees
as per principle of “financial neutrality” and “balancing of employees”.
The direction given in the Supplementary Report was to identify 584 E
employees out of 2165 among those who fulfil the modality No.V alone.
In the list of 584 employees proposed by Andhra Pradesh power utilities,
there are only 170 employees, who are from the list of 2165 employees.
The selection of 584 employees, thus, was beyond list of 2165, which
was contrary to the Supplementary Report itself. Even the Concluding
F
Report is not final and was an open-ended report. As per the Concluding
Report, direction was given to Sub-Committee Member of the Andhra
Pradesh to further delete the names as per direction Nos. I, II and III
and in fact after the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 Sub-Committee
Member from Andhra Pradesh has released another list on 26.06.2020
by deleting 119 employees from the list of 655 employees allocated to G
Andhra Pradesh and deleted 50 employees out of 484 list of employees
and further added 10 more employees to be allocated to Telangana State
on spouse ground. The report dated 20.06.2020, thus, was not even a
final report and finality of the allocation was permitted to be unsettled by
A.P. power utilities. The allocation exercise as per the Concluding Report
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A dated 20.06.2020 is arbitrary being contrary to the orders of this Court
and also contrary to the modalities framed by One-Man Committee and
the earlier reports, i.e., Final Report dated 26.12.2019 and Supplementary
Report dated 11.03.2020. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel
that the Telangana State is both geographically as well as on population
basis smaller State as compared to residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
B
Against allocation of 655 employees to the Andhra Pradesh power utilities,
from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities
502+242+71+584 = 1399 employees have been allocated. Learned senior
counsel for the applicants referring to figures as given in M.A. No.
1286/2020 in paragraph (e) and (f) submits that post allocation, total
C number of employees in Telangana State power utilities are 5115 whereas
in Andhra Pradesh power utilities was only 3552.
18. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing
for Andhra Pradesh power utilities refuting the submissions of the learned
counsel for the applicants contends that the Concluding Report submitted
D by One-Man Committee is not beyond the remit of this Court. One-Man
Committee has not gone beyond the orders of this Court. One-Man
Committee has prepared a Supplementary Report as well as Concluding
Report taking into consideration all modalities finalised by the One-Man
Committee. It is submitted that Government Order Nos. 24, 25 and 26
dated 29.05.2014 were not subject matter of challenge either before the
E High Court or this Court and all the parties had agreed to abide by the
said Government Orders. In terms of Government Orders, ratio of
employees of Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh is 2550:3552. The
figures given by applicants in their M.A. No.1286/2020 in paragraphs
(e) and (f) are the figures, which are not correct and have never been
F placed before the One-Man Committee. The applicants are endeavouring
to re-open all issues of allocation by means of this M.A. whereas under
the orders of this Court dated 28.11.2018, the report of One-Man
Committee was binding on both the power utilities. The Telangana State
power utilities by one or other means right from very beginning have
been harping only on principle of nativity, which was specifically
G disapproved by the High Court. The submission of the applicant that the
allocation exercise was to confine only to 1157 employees is not correct.
Although, it is true that before the High Court, the challenge was to the
unilaterally relieved 1157 by Telangana State power utilities and this Court
in its judgment dated 28.11.2018 has also observed that One-Man
H Committee would determine the modalities for distributing the personnel,
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1005
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
i.e., the aforesaid 1157 employees. This Court has clarified that in case A
dispute persists in respect of other employees of these Power Utility
Companies to the two States, it would be open to the respective States/
Power Utility Companies to bring the same before the said Committee.
It is, thus, clear that the remit of the One-Man Committee was not
confined to 1157 employees only. In view of the dispute submitted before
B
the One-Man Committee, the allocation of all allocated employees was
open for consideration. Shri Kaul submits that population ratio has to be
basis of allocation. He has referred to Section 2(h) and Section 53 of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. It is further submitted that
three Government Order Nos.24, 25 and 26 dated 29.05.2014 referred
to population ratio, hence, the said ratio could not have been ignored C
while allocating. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh power utilities
had not raised any objection with regard to modalities formulated by the
One-Man Committee. The entire dispute arose out of unilaterally relieving
of 1157 employees by Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh
power utilities on the basis of nativity, which action was struck down by
D
the High Court and confirmed by this Court. It is submitted that while
submitting Final Report dated 26.12.2019, One-Man Committee had only
approved list of 655 employees submitted by Telangana State power
utilities to be allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities but no reciprocal
allocation from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana power utilities
was undertaken. At that stage, Andhra Pradesh power utilities had come E
before this Court by filing M.A. and this Court on 24.01.2020 permitted
the parties to go back to the One-Man Committee to represent for
correction of errors. Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 was given
to correct the balance. The Sub-Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh
was entrusted to select 584 names to be allocated to Telangana State
F
power utilities, since Telangana State Power Utilities has already agreed
to accept 71 cases relating to spouse and medical grounds. Thus, total
allocation contemplated from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana
State power utilities was 655, i.e., 71+584. It is submitted that the case
of the applicant that out of 1157 employees 502 were allocated to
Telangana State power utilities and 655 to Andhra Pradesh power utilities G
is without any basis. When a list of 1157 employees unilaterally relieved
by Telangana State power utilities was struck down by the High Court,
all those 1157 continued to be part of Telangana State power utilities,
only allocation was of 655 by Final Report from Telangana State power
utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The figure of 502 is
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A unnecessary being claimed and pressed by applicants to confuse the
issue. Further, 242 employees were also not covered by any part of
allocation by One-Man Committee. 242 is number where employees
working in Andhra Pradesh power utilities, who got them self-relieved
and joined Telangana State power utilities on their own. Telangana State
power utilities had accepted joining of 242 self-relieved employees, it is
B
their burden to shoulder. The allocation, which has been finalised by
One-Man Committee is those of 655 from Telangana State power utilities
to Andhra Pradesh power utilities and 655 from Andhra Pradesh power
utilities to Telangana State power utilities. Members of Sub-Committee
of Andhra Pradesh power utilities were rightly asked to submit a list of
C 584 members, which are proposed to be allocated to Telangana State
power utilities, since 71 out of 655 were already accepted by Telangana.
The submission that 484 are not from the list of 2165 has also been dealt
with by One-Man Committee in the Final Report. Selection of 584 from
Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities were
not to be based on only nativity whereas list of 2165, which was placed
D
before One-Man Committee was the list of those employees, who had
indicated their hometown as territory of Telangana State. Modality (V),
which requires the consideration of option of employees for adjusting
them in the State in which their home district falls as far as possible.
There was no mandate in the modalities or under law to allocate
E employees to his/their home district. All modalities including the option
and seniority were to be considered while finalising the allocation. The
list of 655 employees was earlier submitted by Telangana State power
utilities and approved by One-Man Committee in Final Report dated
26.12.2019. The Andhra Pradesh power utilities were also entitled to
select 655 to be sent to Telangana State power utilities. After the
F
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, further deletion and addition from
the two lists was consequential in pursuance of direction Nos. I and II.
With regard to direction No.III, there was no addition or subtraction.
Direction Nos. I and II were issued by One-Man Committee in the ends
of justice to adjust the equities for which no exception can be taken by
G the applicants. In the Supplementary Report in paragraph 21, it was
already noticed that parties have agreed that all retired employees
between years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility in each State need not
be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them. The direction
No.I was in accord to the aforesaid agreement between the parties with
only modification that the aforesaid direction has been extended to
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1007
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
employees, who are going to retire on 31.12.2020. The above direction A
protects the financial interest of both the States as well as the employees.
One-Man Committee, which has been empowered to take a final decision
regarding allocation was fully entitled to seek any further direction looking
to the fact that the allocation process has taken considerable time and
some further adjustments were required to be made by the One-Man
B
Committee.
19. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Telangana Electricity Engineers Association submits that One-Man
Committee has travelled outside the limits of both the Concluding Report
and Supplementary Report and are not correct. It is submitted that
allocation in Telangana State power utilities being excessive the prospect C
of promotion of Engineers working in Telangana are affected. The
Telangana State power utilities have been over burdened with a large
number of employees, which is contrary to the spirit of Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014 and prospect from the employees hailing from
the Telangana is affected. D
20. Shri Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for
APSPDCL relieved employees contends that the distribution business
of Anantapur and Kurnool Districts of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Central
Power Distribution Company Ltd. was merged with Andhra Pradesh
Southern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. by G.O. No.24 dated E
29.05.2014 and in fact those employees were not subject to any further
allocation. He submits that the names of the applicants were not included
in the Final Report dated 26.12.2019 but now it has come in the
Supplementary Report and the Concluding Report, which deserves to
be set aside.
F
21. Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned senior counsel submits that
One-Man Committee has not taken into consideration the judgment of
this Court in Telangana Judges Association Vs. Union of India,
(2018) SCC Online SC 1729, which was referred to by this Court in
its judgment dated 28.11.2018 deciding the Civil Appeal No.11435/2018.
He further submits that in Supplementary Report modalities earlier G
finalised have been obliterated.
22. Shri Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala, learned counsel appearing in
M.A. Diary No. 13844 of 2020 submits that the applicants are senior
most employees and they were relieved from Telangana State power
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities, they are not being paid salary
citing direction No. I of Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020.
23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records.
24. Before we enter into the submissions of learned counsel for
B the parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of these miscellaneous
applications qua the One-Man Committee’s Report. In order dated
28.11.2018 passed by this Court appointing One Man’s Committee, this
Court made clear that decision of the One-Man Committee shall be final
and binding on the all the parties including Power Utility Companies of
C the two States. relevant part of the order is as follows:-
“We make it clear that the decision of the one man
Committee head by Justice Dharmadhikari shall be final and binding
on all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the two
States as well as the employees and shall be executed by all the
D parties as an order of this Court.”
25. While disposing of the appeal, this Court, however, made
following observations:-
“However, in case, any clarification or further direction is required
by any of the parties they are entitled to approach this Court by
E filing interlocutory application in these proceedings.”
26. The liberty granted to parties to seek clarification or further
direction was with object to complete the process of distributing the
personnel between two States. There was no right of appeal given to
any of the parties or any officer or employee against the report of One-
F Man Committee. The power utilities of both the States having not been
able to arrive at any consensus to finally determine the modalities to
distribute the personnel between two States, this Court constituted One-
Man Committee to decide the dispute. When this Court clearly directed
as noted above that decision of One-Man Committee shall be final and
binding on all the parties including power utility companies as well as the
G
employees, the decision of the One-Man Committee has to be given due
weight and cannot be lightly interfered with. The scope of these
miscellaneous applications is, thus, very limited and by these miscellaneous
applications, the power utilities of both the States cannot be allowed to
seek re-examination of various issues, which were raised before One-
H Man Committee.
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1009
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
27. As noted above, it is Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh A
Reorganisation Act, 2014, which deals with employees of public sector
undertaking. The key words in Section 82 are “the corporate body
concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel
between the two successor States”. The High Court in its impugned
judgment dated 02.02.2018 while answering point No.2 framed by the
B
High Court had observed in paragraph 51:-
“51. For the foregoing reasons, we hold point No.1 in the negative
and against the Telangana State Government and the Telangana
State power utilities. Under point No.2, we hold that the phrase
“corporate body concerned” shall be read as “corporate bodies
concerned” and the words “between the two successor States” C
have to be construed as “two successor corporations/companies.”
28. Thus, as per the statutory Scheme delineated by Section 82,
the power utilities themselves were contemplated to determine the
modalities for distributing the personnel between two successor
corporations/companies. It was due to failure of power utilities of both D
the States to arrive at a consensus and after unilateral decision of power
utilities of Telangana to relieve 1157 employees from Telangana to Andhra
Pradesh merely on the ground of nativity, the litigation started in the
High Court by filing various writ petitions. The reference of three
Government Orders, which were issued by erstwhile State of Andhra E
Pradesh on 29.05.2014, which has been referred to and relied by One-
Man Committee also need to be noted. Government Order No. 24 dated
29.05.2014 was issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, which
Government Order states:-
“ENERGY (CC) DEPARTMENT F
G.O.Ms.No. 24. Dated: 29-05-2014
As the two districts of Ananthapur and Kurnool fall within
the residual state of AP, in accordance with Schedule XII of Andhra
Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014, it is necessary to reassign the
distribution business of these two districts to the present G
APSPDCL from APCPDCL. The assets and liabilities shall be
reassigned to APSPDCL as per the Section 53 of the Act. To
facilitate the reassignment of the distribution business of the two
districts of Ananthapur and Kurnool to APSPDCL as per the Act,
following guidelines are issued.
H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A I. Effective Date/Appointed Date: The Effective/Appointed
date for transfer of the business is 02.06.2014.
II. Employees: All the employees working in Kurnool and
Ananthapur circles on the appointed day will continue to work
in the same places till the final allotment of employees to the
B respective DISCOMS is completed in accordance with
guidelines to be issued by government separately in this regard.
Their salaries will be paid by APCPDCL and reimbursed by
APSPDCL on monthly basis till the final allotment is
completed. Provisional allocation of staff will be done as per
State Government guidelines.”
C
29. Another Government Order being G.O. No.25 dated 29.05.2014
was issued for allocation of AP GENCO for Telangana, the posts and
staff to be transferred to the newly created Telangana GENCO was to
be in accordance with the Guidelines contained therein. All sanctioned
posts for Telangana Region Projects located in Telangana State shall
D stand transferred to Telangana GENCO w.e.f. effective date. Paragraph
6 of the Government Order dealt with allocation of sanctioned technical
posts at Head Quarters and allocation of sanctioned common services
posts at Head Quarters. Another Government Order No.26 dated
29.05.2014 was issued containing Guidelines on separate creation of
E TRANSCO for Telangana State. In paragraph 5 of the Government
Order, which deals with transfer of posts to TG TRANSCO, following
was stated:-
“5. Transfer of posts to TG TRANSCO: All the posts related
to District, Field and Zonal offices including Central Training
F Institute at Hyderabad located in Telangana State shall stand
transferred to TG TRANSCO with effect from Effective date.
Posts at AP TRANSCO Head Quarter shall be divided between
two Transcos based on population ratio of respective state. Based
on this principle, head quarter posts transferred to TG TRANSCO
is listed in Annexure- C.”
G
30. The above three Government Orders, which were issued with
regard to these power distribution companies, generation and transmission
were relevant for the subject. There was no challenge to the aforesaid
Government Orders either before the High Court or before this Court.
In paragraph 39 of the judgment of the High Court, following was
H observed by the High Court:-
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1011
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
“39. A doubt would arise as to when the State Government has A
no power for distribution of the personnel between the two
successor bodies, whether it has the power to distribute the posts.
Neither of the successor States nor the successor power utilities
have challenged the validity of these G.Os., allocating the posts
among the successor power utilities. Even during the hearing,
B
neither of the two Advocates General has either taken the stand
that there was no allocation of the posts, nor advanced any
submission against such allocation. Therefore, there could be no
impediment for the allocation of the employees based on the
allocation of the posts made in the aforementioned G.Os. In the
alternative, if the joint committee of the power utilities feel that C
amendments or adjustments to the allocation of posts made under
the aforementioned three GOs are necessary, they shall be free
to do so based on the consensus.”
31. As noted above, the judgment of the High Court was upheld
by this Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2018. Now, we need to notice D
the modalities, which were finalised by One-Man Committee. on
17.04.2019, final modalities to the following effect were finalised by
One-Man Committee:-
“(I) All Identifiable allocable employees.
I. All State Cadre Employees of the rank of Assistant Engineer E
and equivalent post and above.
II. All posts at the Head Quarters of APEGENCO, APTRANSCO
and D!SCOMs falling within the territory of the two States are
allocable.
F
(II) All identified allocable employees in Power utilities of united
Andhra Pradesh (including 1157 unilaterally relieved by Telangana
+ 229 unilaterally allowed to join by Telangana) will be considered
for final allocation to the new States of Andhra Pradesh and
Telangana on “as is where is basis” on the appointed day on
2.6.2014 in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the G
Act of 2014.
(III) The allocation of employees to the two new States would be
Power Utility-wise (i.e GENCO, TRANSCO and DISCOMs) in
proportion to the posts sanctioned in each Power Utility and in
accordance with G.O.Ms No. 24 for DISCOMs and G.OMs No.25 H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A for GENCO and G.O.Ms No.26 for TRANSCO issued by Energy
(CC Department) of Govcrn1ncnt of Andhra Pradesh under section
53 of the Act of 2014.
(IV) The allocable employees will have liberty to give options in
the prescribed form Annexed to the present modalities. However,
B the employees who have already exercised options, will not be
allowed again to sub1nit options for a different place or location in
any of the two States. The opportunity of submitting option in the
prescribed form would be available only to such employees who
have not submitted their options earlier.
C (V) The allocable employees would, as far as possible, after
consideration of their options be adjusted in the State in which
their Home District falls as per the information contained in their
service records and obtained from them through the information
available and provided by them in their written representations.
D (VI) The Provisional Allocation list after preparation will be
displayed on the Notice Board of the Head Quarters of each
Power Utility and also put on the website and other electronic
sites for information of the employees. The employees may take
up their written representations within three weeks from the date
of the optics for proposed allocation.
E
(VII) Representations of the employees in respect of proposed
allocation shall be duly considered by Two Member Sub Committee
comprising One Member each of the Power Utilities within the
area of AP and TS. After considering the representations of the
employees by the Sub Committee, the proposed Allocation List
F will be submitted to the One Man Committee.
(VIII) The employees of the category of SCs and STs shall as far
as possible, be allotted to the appropriate ·company in the State in
which the concerned SC or ST employee is notified as such in
accordance with the Constitutional Provisions.
G
(IX) Case of alleviation of extreme personal hardship of State
Government employees will be exceptions to the principle. It would
be open to Committee to consider the representation or request
of allocation on case to case basis.
(X) Widowed Female employees legally separated and divorced
H women employees will be considered for allocation to the State,
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1013
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
basing on their request for allotment. It would be open to the A
committee to consider the representation or request of allocation
on case to case basis.
(XI) Handicapped persons of more than 60% disability may be
allocated on the basis of option, subject to the procedure prescribed
by the State Government. It would be open to the con11nittee to B
consider the representations or request of allocation on case to
case basis.
(XII) An employee of whose spouse or child is known to be facing
serious medical hardship, like in cases of cancer, open heart bypass,
and kidney transplant/kidney failure dependent on dialysis or C
mentally challenged, shall be considered for allotment on special
grounds on the basis of request of allotment, subject to strict proof
of verification as per the procedure prescribed by the State
Government. It would be open to the committee to consider the
representation or request of allocation on case to case basis.
D
(XIII) In spouse cases, where the employee of the Spouse working
in State Government, Central Government, State Government
institutions, Local Bodies, the following guidelines may be adopted.
It would be open to the Committee to consider the representation
or request of allocation on case to case basis.
E
(I) Allocation of both spouses may be considered for the state
to which both of them are native.
(II) In case where one of them is working in State Power
Utilities and other is working 1n PSU/Defence
Organizations/ Railways/ Banking and Insurance Sectors/ F
Central Government/ State Government, the said cases may
be considered on case to case basis.
(III) Spouses who belong to different States (AP /TS) may be
allocated together as per their request to one State.
(XIV) All the employees who have retired/ died after the Appointed G
Day and the pensioners shall be allotted as per the above
formulated modalities.”
32. The modality No.(III) as above provides that the allocation of
employees to the two new States would be Power Utility-wise in
proportion to the posts sanctioned in each Power Utility and in accordance H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A with G.O.Ms Nos. 24, 25 and 26. The modality No.(IV) provided for a
liberty to allocable employees to give options in the prescribed form.
Modality NO.(II) also contemplate that all identified allocable employees
in Power utilities of united Andhra Pradesh will be considered for final
allocation to the new States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on “as is
where is basis” on the appointed day on 2.6.2014. The One-Man
B
Committee had also constituted a Sub-Committee consisting of one
representative of power utilities of Andhra Pradesh and one representative
of power utilities of Telangana to assist One-Man Committee in finalising
the distribution. After framing of the modalities, One-Man Committee
proceeded with the task. The member of Sub-Committee of Telangana
C utilities had submitted a list of 655 employees out of 1157 earlier
unilaterally relieved by Telangana power utilities to be allocated to Andhra
Pradesh utilities. One-Man Committee submitted a Final Report dated
26.12.2019 alongwith which final allocation list for the two States’
corporations/companies wise was annexed. The list of 655 employees,
which was proposed by Sub-Committee Member of Telangana was
D
approved to be allocated to different power utilities of Andhra Pradesh.
The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. filed application
being M.A. No.60 of 2020 in this Court seeking certain direction with
regard to Final Report dated 26.12.2019, copy of M.A. No.60 of 2020
has been brought on record as Annexure R-10 to the common counter
E affidavit filed on behalf of respondent. One of the issues raised in the
application was that although One-Man committee has approved the list
of 655 employees allocating them to Andhra Pradesh power utilities but
no allocation was made in respect of 3517 allocable employees working
on order to serve basis in Andhra Pradesh power utilities. In paragraph
4c, d and e following has been pleaded:-
F
“c. That the names of the 3517 state cadre allocable employees
working in AP Power utilities are not found any mention in the
final report dated 26-12-2019.
d. Moreover, an additional 655 employees were unlawfully thrust
G upon the AP power utilities over and above the allocable posts
available with AP power utilities.
e. That because of the above omission, there is an inward transfer
of additional 655 employees from Telangana to AP over and above
the 3517 employees, who are already working on order to serve
H basis and there is no outward transfer of any employees from AP
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1015
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
to Telangana. the obvious result is that instead of the allocation of A
all 6102 allocable employees in percentages between the two States
as given in the GO Ms. 24, 25 and 26, the ratio has now skewed
more towards AP because of the proposed inward transfer. In
other words, AP is being forced to absorb in excess of the allocable
posts mandated by the Reorganisation Act as well as the binding
B
G.O.s.”
33. M.A. No. 60 of 2020 was disposed of by this Court by order
dated 24.01.2020 where this Court made following observations:-
“This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the work
of allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, the C
modalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all, to
which, there is no dissension between the parties. There being no
dispute regarding modalities, in event, there is some error or
mistake in the working of the modalities that can be pointed out to
the same committee by means of a representation and we hope
and trust that the committee shall look into the said grievance and D
correct the error, if any. We also make it clear that if the
representation is submitted by the applicant, copy of the same
shall be given to the power utilities of both the Sates, who may
also have liberty to submit a response to those representation,
which may be considered by the one man committee. The E
representation be submitted within two weeks and response thereto
be also submitted within two weeks thereafter.”
34. After the order dated 24.01.2020, One-Man Committee heard
the Andhra Pradesh power utilities, which made a representation to One-
Man Committee to rectify the list. A reply was also submitted by Telangana F
State power utilities. On 23.02.2020, the One-Man Committee held a
meeting for consideration of the representation. In pursuance of the
deliberations, T.S. power utilities submitted their proposals for
accommodating 71 employees on spouse and medical grounds. on
11.03.2020, One-Man Committee issued a Supplementary Report. In
the Supplementary Report, One–Man Committee noted that 655 G
employees, who were allocated from T.S. power utilities to A.P. power
utilities have already been relieved. One-Man Committee has further
observed that to complete the allocation process comprehensively by
including all allocable employees alongwith 1157 ex-parte relieved, a
separate exercise has been undertaken. One-Man Committee noted that H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A with regard to 71 employees from A.P. power utilities to Telangana State
power utilities both the parties have agreed and the list of 71 employees
was annexed alongwith the Report. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 27 of the
Supplementary Report, which are relevant, are to the following effect:-
“21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retired employees
B between years 2014 to 2020 in each Power Utility in each State
need not be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them.
22. On the basis of the Allocation Lists proposed by AP Power
Utilities, the present Committee has identified and listed in Annexed
lists with the present Supplementary Report, total 2165 employees
C which include 1157 earlier relieved and were working on the side
of Telangana on the basis of the stay orders of the High Court
and Hon’ble Supreme Court. Those employees continued to serve
in TS Companies on the basis of the order of the Court. Out of
above mentioned 1157 the employees, numbering 655 have been
relieved by TS for AP Companies who are awaiting joining, posting
D and payments of their salaries.
23. The present Committee in the lists annexed to the present
Supplementary Report has identified total 2165 employees as
suitable for allocation to TS Companies on the basis of the
Modalities agreed by the parties and approved by Supreme Court.
E
The breakup of employees presently working in AP
Companies which are identified as suitable for allocation to TS
Companies are as under:-
COMPANIES EMPLOYEES IN NUMBER
TRANSCO 993
F TSGENCO 1125
TSSPDCL 47
TOTAL 2165
27. The present Committee is entrusting the work to the member
of the Sub-Committee representing AP side, of identification of
584 employees from the lists Annexed to the Supplementary Report
G of the Committee for Allocating them from AP Power Utilities to
TS Power Utilities. It needs mention that the abovementioned
584 employees should be other than 655 employees out of earlier
relieved 1157 and who are awaiting orders of joining, posting and
payment of salary from Andhra Pradesh Side.”
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1017
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
35. The One-Man Committee further issued certain clarification A
on 13.03.2020 on receipt of the letter dated 12.03.2020 on behalf of
Telangana State power utilities. After the issue of Supplementary Report,
Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh power utilities submitted a
letter dated 12.03.2020 submitting a list of 584 persons identified as per
Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 to be allocated to Telangana
B
power utilities. Telangana power utilities has raised objections regarding
list of 584 employees and also filed a Miscellaneous Application No.920
of 2020. This Court disposed of the M.A. No.920 of 2020 with the
observation that objection with regard to 584 employees raised by
Telangana power utilities are to be considered by One-Man Committee.
Various employees sent different representations to power utilities as C
well as to the One-Man Committee. One-Man Committee issued a
direction dated 11.05.2020 directing both the sides to consider
representations received from the employees effectively and send their
revised proposed allocations. The Sub-Committee Member of Andhra
Pradesh submitted a letter dated 26.05.2020 revising the list of 584
D
persons to be allocated to Telangana State power utilities. The list
submitted by letter dated 26.05.2020 was objected by Telangana power
utilities by their letter dated 10.06.2020. After considering the list submitted
by Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh and the objection of
Telangana, Concluding Report has been submitted by One-Man
Committee dated 20.06.2020. E
36. In M.A. No. 1286 of 2020, learned counsel for the applicants
in paragraphs E and F has given certain figures regarding allocation as
per Report dated 26.12.2019 and as per Report dated 20.06.2020.
Applicants have also disputed the number of allocable employees as
claimed by Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The number of allocable F
employees as claimed on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh power utilities,
i.e., 6102 has been questioned in the application. It is submitted that
allocable employees were not 6102 but were much more. It has been
claimed that as per Concluding Report, Telangana State power utilities
have now been allocated 5115 employees and Andhra Pradesh power
utilities have been allocated 3552 employees, thus, as per claim of the G
applicants by final Concluding Report actually 8667 employees have
been allocated. The above figures have been stoutly refuted by learned
counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh power utilities submitting that
figures, which are now sought to be claimed in the application by applicant
was never placed before the One-Man Committee and the figures given H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A by the applicants are all imaginary and needs no consideration. It is
submitted by the respondent that endeavour of the applicants is to confuse
the issue by giving all wrong figures.
37. To satisfy ourselves with regard to figures of allocable
employees, which were placed before the One-Man Committee, we
B have looked into the claim of respective parties as was placed before
the One-Man Committee. In letter dated 26.05.2020, Annexure R-19 to
the common counter affidavit, details relating to allocable employees as
per three Government Orders were mentioned as 6102. In paragraphs 9
and 18, following has been stated:-
C “9. The stated stand of the AP utilities has been as mentioned in
the above order dated 01.05.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India is that ratios as per GOs be maintained, i.e., out of
6102 “allocable” employees. 3552 is the threshold limit of Andhra
Pradesh Utilities and 2550 is threshold limit of Telangana Power
Utilities. The said numbers are sacrosanct and cannot be altered.
D The committee was constituted and empowered to consider
allocation of all allocable employees and was not limited to 1157
employees as was and continued to be contended by Telangana
Utilities. Further the Telangana Utilities continue to seek allocation
of “Nativity” principle. Both the stands of the Telangana Utilities
E have been rejected which is the essence of AP Reorganization
Act, 2014 read with Modalities finalized by the Hon’ble One Man
Committee. Secondly the allocation will be strictly in accordance
with the GOs and all other modalities to be applied on case to
case basis; as far as possible. It is most humbly submitted that,
while identifying the 655 that were allotted to AP utilities, the
F Telangana Utilities have not applied any scientific mechanism or
the modalities but is based primarily on the “Nativity/Home district”
Principle: whereas identification of 584 employees by A.P. Utilities
is based on objective criteria contained in the working modalities,
aided by the DoPT guidelines and is in accordance with the
G directions of the courts in this regard. The identification of
personnel on cadre basis has been carried out such that the 655
employees are balanced with (584+71) so that financial neutrality
is maintained.
18. That, at very outset it is submitted that TS Power Utilities are
H again seeking to reopen the whole allocation. There is an all-out
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1019
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
attempt to confuse the numbers and thus for clarity, the numbers A
are explained hereunder.
18.1 Total Number of Allocable Employees is 6102 as on
02.06.2014.
18.2 Ratios as laid down by the provisions of the AP
Reorganization Act and the binding GOs as per the modalities B
is Andhra Pradesh power utilities: Telangana power
utilities = 3552:2550.
18.3 As on 02.06.2014 employees working on order to serve
with Andhra Pradesh utilities are 3552 and similarly
employees working on order to serve with Telangana C
Utilities are 2550.
18.4 Final Report dated 26.12.2019 allocated 3552 (already
working on order to serve) plus additional 655 making
total of 4207 to AP utilities and reduced the number
of employees in Telangana utilities to 1895, thus, D
skewing the balance and disrupting the ratios under
the GOs.
18.5 Citing the mismatch of ratios i.e., 3552:2550 for which
AP utilities had approached Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide their clarification petition vide MA Nos. 60, 61 E
and 62. Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the
errors in the Allocation and directed the AP Power
Utilities to approach this Hon’ble Committee for
rectification of errors and application of Modalities
strictly. F
18.6 Thus the Hon’ble one man committee held proceedings at
Delhi and by accepting the doctrine of ‘financial neutrality’
vide Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 the above
errors in ratios which had crept in were corrected and cured
and thus with same ratio as stipulated in GOs 3552:2550
G
has been restored and 655 allotted to AP are balanced
by corresponding 655 (584 + 71) allotted to TS.”
38. The claim as made by Sub-Committee Member of the Andhra
Pradesh power utilities was objected by the applicants and they have
filed a detailed letter dated 10.06.2020 which letter is part of M.A.
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A No.1270/2020 whereby replying paragraph 9, following has been stated
in paragraph 9.1:-
“9.1. Further, the order dated 1-5-2020 of the Hon.ble Supreme
Court does not refer to the Government orders or that out of
6102 allocable employees, 3552 is the threshold limit of AP Power
B Utilities and 2550 is threshold limit of TS Power Utilities. Such
an averment is misleading. In this regard it is submitted that, the
figures as given by the Member, AP in Para-9 is incorrect even as
per the list furnished by the AP Power Utilities to the Hon’ble
OMC on 23-02-2020. According to their own [A.P Power Utilities]
Final list of employees submitted to your Lordship on 23-02-2020
C the total allocable employees are 6198 and not 6102 employees
as has been stated now. In the list of 6198 employees, as was
furnished by AP Power utilities, 2225 employees were found
allocable to TS Power Utilities and 3973 employees to AP Power
Utilities. And out of the 2225 employees found allocable to TS
D Power Utilities; the Hon’ble OMC had identified 2165 employees
suitable for allocation to TS Power Utilities in Para-23 of the
Supplementary Report dtd: 11-03-2020. Therefore, the figures as
specified now in Para-9 of the letter dtd:26-05-2020 is incorrect
and has been done without any basis and only with a view to
create confusion and complicate the issue. The population ratio
E has no relevancy for allocation of the employees in terms of Section
82 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014.”
39. The claim made in paragraph 18 of the letter dated 26.05.2020
was further objected in paragraph 15 of the letter dated 10.06.2020.
The Telangana State power utilities have repeated the same averments,
F which have been noted in paragraph 9.1 as above. From the materials
placed by the applicants before the One-Man Committee in response to
the claim of 6102 employees allocable on 02.06.2014, no figure of their
own has been submitted by the applicants rather they only say that
Andhra Pradesh power utilities itself have given a figure of 6198 in
G place of 6102. When no materials have been placed before the One-
Man Committee with regard to number of allocable employees on
02.06.2014, it is not open for the applicants to give new figures before
this Court. This Court cannot permit the parties to reopen the number of
allocable employees as on 02.01.2020 to anything contrary, which was
not placed before the One-Man Committee. We, thus, are of the view
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1021
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
that figures, now, sought to be given in M.A. No.1286 of 2020 need to A
be ignored. We, thus, do not find any error in the allocations made by the
One-Man Committee in its Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020.
40. We may further observe that the list of 655 employees
submitted by Telangana State power utilities for allocation to Andhra
Pradesh power utilities has been approved by the One-Man Committee B
for which there is no dispute. The One-Man Committee has undertaken
exercise to identify the list of 655 employees from Andhra Pradesh power
utilities to be transferred to Telangana State power utilities. The
proceeding to balance the number of employees from Telangana State
power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities being 655, we fail to
understand that how the applicants can raise the issue regarding number C
of allocable employees to be considered by this Court in these
proceedings.
41. The submission which has been much pressed by the learned
counsel for the applicants is that number of employees allocated to
Telangana State power utilities is much more as compared to those which D
have been allocated from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra
Pradesh power utilities. The applicants have repeatedly in their application
and their objection before the One-Man Committee have referred to
502 out of 1157, 242 self-relieved employees and 71 spouse and medical
cases plus 584 which have been permitted to be identified by Member E
of Andhra Pradesh Sub-Committee. The submission is that
502+242+71+584 becomes 1399, hence 1399 have been allocated to
Telangana State power utilities as against 655, which has been allocated
from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities.
We may need to look into the above submission on the basis of each
figure claimed by the applicant. F
42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to the applicant
is balance from 1157 by reducing it by 655. The 502 figure as noted
above, 1157 is the number of persons, which were initially relieved by
Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities
unilaterally which decision was set aside by the High Court and was G
upheld by this Court. Out of 1157 only 655 have been allocated to Andhra
Pradesh power utilities, which was approved by Final Report dated
26.12.2019 of the One-Man Committee. How allocation of 502 is claimed
when they are the employees, who remained on Telangana State without
they being allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities apart from 655 H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Further employees working
in Telangana State were allowed to remain in Telangana State, hence,
allocation from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655 and
addition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.
43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number of self-relieved
B employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Admittedly, 242
employees are, thus, who got themselves self-relieved from Andhra
Pradesh without there being any order or without there being any direction
by anyone. These 242 employees were permitted joining by Telangana
power utilities by its own. These 242 employees having never been
allocated to nor being part of any allocation cannot be added in figure by
C Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, which is agreed spouse and
medical ground cases by both the parties. 71 is part of 655, which is now
being identified by Andhra Pradesh to be allocated to Telangana State.
By taking this no.71 in Supplementary Report permitting Andhra Pradesh
to identify only 584, thus, it is only 584+71, i.e., 655 employees, which
D are now being sought to be allocated to the Telangana State by One-
Man Committee. We, thus, do not find any merit in the contention of the
applicant that 1399 employees have been allocated to Telangana State
as against 655 allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.
44. Now, another limb of attack of the applicants is on the selection
E of 584 employees, which have been approved by the Concluding Report
to be allocated to the Telangana State. It is submitted by applicants that
in Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the One-Man Committee
has itself stated that there are 2165 employees, who are suitable for
allocation to Telangana State companies, which has also been noticed in
paragraph 23 of the Supplementary Report. When the Andhra Pradesh
F Sub-Committee Member vide letter dated 26.05.2020 has submitted the
revised list of 584, immediately objection was raised by Telangana State
vide letter dated 10.06.2020 raising an objection that 584 does not form
part of 2165 from which only the A.P. Sub-Committee had to identify
584. Initially by letter dated 12.03.2020, the Andhra Pradesh Sub-
G Committee Members have selected 584 employees, which was modified
by letter dated 26.05.2020. The reason for modification in the list have
been given in letter dated 26.05.2020 of Andhra Pradesh power utilities.
It has been stated that after Supplementary Report and direction dated
11.05.2020, representations were submitted by the employees with regard
to rest of 584 and One-Man Committee issued a direction on 11.05.2020
H to the following effect:-
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1023
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
“Due to outbreak of Corona virus and consequent lock down A
imposed in India, a formal personal meeting with the members of
the Sub-Committee for finalizing the process of allocation does
not seem possible in near future. The dispute now seems to have
narrowed down to 584 employees allocation by AP to TS side.
Both sides are directed to consider the representations received
B
from the employees collectively and individually and send their
revised proposed allocation. Both sides should exchange their
revised allocation Lists limited to 584 employees of AP who
presently stand allocated to TS. The members of the Sub-
Committee are directed to send their proposed revised lists latest
by 1st June, 2020. As and when normalcy is restored in the country, C
if necessary, a formal personal meeting date will be communicated
to the parties well in advance”.
45. Further in paragraph 13, following has been stated:-
“13. That the substitution which takes place in the annexed revised
lists is in terms of directions dated 11.05.2020 issued by this Hon’ble D
Committee and in terms of orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The majority of representations were of the nature of
Special Cases including spouse cases, medical cases, physically
handicapped cases etc. Their grievances are addressed and on
humanitarian grounds and substitutions have been affected strictly E
as per modalities. No revised options were considered in this
exercise.”
46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165 was considered
by the One-Man Committee, which is reflected from the Concluding
Report dated 20.06.2020. The above objection has been duly considered F
and answered by the One-Man Committee in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and
28 of the Concluding Report, which is to the following effect:-
“25. The second submission on behalf of TS is that with the
Supplementary Report, this Committee had Identified total 2165
employees in the list given to AP Sub Committee member for G
proposing allocation from that list. It is urged on behalf of TS, that
allocation list proposed by AP is not out of 2165 listed employees
with the Supplementary Report of this Committee.
26. It is true, as urged on behalf of TS, that with the Supplementary
Report, this Committee had identified 2165 employees bused on
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A modality Nos. 5 which requires consideration of every employee
for his home district and his adjustment as far as possible in the
State in which his home district falls.
27. This Committee has to be open to correction. The Committee
is also of the view that modality No. V alone is not decisive and
B modalities no. I to IV are to be cumulatively taken into
consideration and applied to make allocation in proportion to the
available posts in each Company in the Two States. TS side has
accepted that 114 employees from out of 584 employees proposed
for allocation by A.P to T.S are included in 2165 employees
identified by this Committee in the lint annexed with Supplementary
C Report. The remaining 470 employees (falling outside 2165
employees identified with the supplementary report) have been
proposed by A.P for T.S in the report of the Sub Committee
Member. The justification shown is that it is to match the number
of employees with the available posts in various companies.
D 28. In the above circumstances, mentioned above, this Committee
finds the Allocation Lists company-wise and post-wise proposed
by AP deserves approval and it is so approved.”
47. One-Man Committee accepted the reasons given by Sub-
Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh that list of 2165 was only
E considered on the basis of modality No.V and modality No.V itself cannot
be the sole basis for allocation, hence other modalities were also taken
into consideration before finalising the list of 584. It is true that in
Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the list of 2165 was indicated
as list of suitable persons who are eligible to be allocated to Telangana
F State, however, the selection made of 584 by applying modalities No. I
to V by the Andhra Pradesh Member Sub-Committee has found approval
and even if all members of 584 does not form part of 2165, no exception
can be taken to such allocation, which find approval by One-Man
committee. We may further notice that insofar as the list of allocation of
655 employees is concerned, which was submitted by Telangana State
G power utilities, was approved by the One-Man Committee. The task to
select 584 was rightly entrusted by One-Man Committee to Andhra
Pradesh Sub-Committee Member since those 584 has to go to Telangana
State from Andhra Pradesh and those 584, who are working in the
territories of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh utilities were the best
H suited to select 584 by applying all the modalities. Thus, the objection
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1025
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
raised by the applicants on selection of 584 having not been accepted by A
the One-Man Committee, we see no reason to take any different view.
48. Now, one more objection of the applicants, which needs to be
noticed is the objection that even the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020
is not final report and Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh has
been authorised to modify the list. Applicants have referred to direction B
Nos. I, II and III of the Concluding Report, which is to the following
effect:-
I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21 of the
Supplementary Report of this Committee regarding retired
employees on both sides, it is further directed, that in both the C
States, employees who have attained or will be attaining 58
Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation
process and their names in the Allocation Lists will be
removed.
II. In the allocation process of the present dimension and D
undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the
Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts and
service prospects of every employee. The allocation process
has been finalized on laid down principles contained in the
modalities and elbow room, wherever permissible, in the
modalities has been given effect to. The committee however E
directs the Sub Committee member of AP to re-examine any
left out spouse and medical cases and every attempt should
be made to accommodate them in the state of their option.
III. All SC/ST employees cases be re-examined to accommodate
them as per modality VIII in the State where they are notified F
as SCs or STs so as not to affect their future service growth.
49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One-Man
Committee that those who have attained or will be attaining 58 Years of
age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation process and their
names in the Allocation Lists will be removed. In Supplementary Report G
in paragraph 21, the One-Man Committee has stated:-
“21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retired employees
between years 2014 to 2020 in each Power Utility in each State
need not be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them.”
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A 50. The above indicates that both the parties had agreed before
the One-Man Committee that all retired employees between years 2014
to 2020 in each power utility in each State need not be displaced. Thus,
the above was agreement between both the parties before the One-
Man Committee and direction No.I only an extension of the said
agreement, i.e., whoever shall be attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall
B
be kept out of allocation process. As per paragraph 21 of the
Supplementary Report, those, who retire till then were already kept out
of the allocation and the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be said to
be unreasonable. The allocation process being not yet finalised and
awaiting finalisation for last several years, those who retire either in
C Telangana State or Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decided not to be
displaced only for the purpose of shouldering pensionary liability. The
direction No.I is equitable.
51. The applicants further submit that after the Concluding Report
dated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020, Andhra Pradesh power
D utilities have struck 119 names from the incoming 655 list from the
Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. We
are of the view that the said dropping is only consequential to the decision
of the One-Man Committee as reflected in paragraph 21 of
Supplementary Report and direction No.I of Concluding Report. The
Andhra Pradesh power utilities have also deleted 50 names from the list
E of 584 employees outgoing from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to
Telangana State power utilities, which was again in compliance of the
One-Man Committee’s decision. Any consequential action taken in
pursuance of the Concluding Report cannot be said to be not
contemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannot be said to be an
F open ended report. The consequence of Concluding Report has to be
taken to its logical ends. Further, 10 employees have been added by
direction Nos. II and the reasons have been given in the letter dated
26.06.2020 for relieving them, which is again consequence of direction
Nos.I and II. We, thus, are of the view that the One-Man Committee
has considered all materials and objections placed before it by both sides
G including the representation of the employees and employees organisations
submitted from time to time. The process which was initiated by submitting
Final Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by Supplementary
Report dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The
One-Man Committee being aware of all objections and having taken a
H conscious decision to finalise the allocation between two States, we do
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1027
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
not find any such error in the process which may warrant any clarification A
or direction by this Court. We may further notice that the exercise
undertaken by the One-Man Committee is to allocate 655 from Telangana
State to Andhra Pradesh and same number from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana State. Apart from the above two allocations, other personnel,
who were working in Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh were not
B
disturbed by allocation.
52. Learned counsel for the applicants have also taken exception
to reciprocity of 655 number. We do not find that there is any error in
reciprocity. The One-Man Committee took a decision that when 655
employees are coming from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh, same
number should go from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. In the C
Concluding Report, final list has been annexed, which is utility-wise and
personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We, thus, do not find
any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State
power utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which are
dismissed. D
53. We may also need to deal with the submission of Shri
Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel in M.A. No.1287 of 2020. The
main submission of the learned counsel is that applicant being permanent
employee of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company
with regard to which G.O. No.24 dated 29.05.2014 was issued, no further E
allocation was required. It is submitted that Ananthapur and Kurnool
districts were transferred from Central Power Distribution Company
Ltd. to Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. He submits that when
allocation was made from Central Power Distribution Company to
Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., allocation was complete
and no further allocation was necessary. Paragraph 2 of the Government F
Order reads as follows:-
“II. Employees: All the employees working in Kurnool and
Ananthapur circles on the appointed day will continue to work in
the same places till the final allotment of employees to the respective
DISCOMS is completed in accordance with guidelines to be issued G
by government separately in this regard. Their salaries will be
paid by APCPDCL and reimbursed by APSPDCL on monthly
basis till the final allotment is completed. Provisional allocation of
staff will be done as per State Government guidelines.”
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 13 S.C.R.
A 54. The paragraph 2 above also contemplates final allotment.
Before the High Court, one of the points framed for consideration was
to the following effect:-
“4. Whether the division of employees of the TSSPDCL need not
be undertaken in view of clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule ?”
B 55. The above points were categorically answered by the High
Court in paragraph 59 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
“59. The two Districts of Anantapur and Kurnool which were
part of APCPDCL before the creation of the State of Telangana
have been reassigned to the APSPDCL by clause C(8) of the
C Twelfth Schedule. The submission of Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy that
in view of the said provision the need for division of the employees
between the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL is obviated and the
application of Section 82 of the Act has got excluded, is without
any merit. Under clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule, the division
D was confined only to the territorial areas of the said two Districts.
Neither the assets and liabilities nor the employees have been
distributed by the said provision. Evidently, keeping this in mind,
the A.P. State Government, before the appointed day, has merely
divided the cadre strength between the two DISCOMS by
G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29-5-2014 while clearly envisaging therein
E the final allotment of the employees in future. It has also allowed
the employees working in the said two Districts to continue to
work in the same places till the final allotment of the employees to
the respective DISCOMS is completed. It is therefore imperative
that the allocation between the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL is
F made in the same way as allocation of the employees between
the TRANSCOs and GENCOs of the two States is to be made
after determining the modalities for such allocation.”
56. The above judgment of the High Court having been upheld by
this Court, the submission of learned counsel that no allocation process
G ought to be undertaken for applicants is without any merit. Further,
submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that their names
were not included in the Final List dated 26.12.2019 also does not in any
manner militate against and their names subsequently included for
allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State utilities. We having
upheld the allocation made by the One-Man Committee from Andhra
H
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1029
GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
Pradesh to Telangana State also, we find no merit in M.A. No.1287 of A
2020, which stands rejected.
57. With regard to other M.A.s, which have been noticed above,
we make it clear that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with
distribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution has
been finalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocation B
made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any
employee or officer is entertainable, we clarify that the One-Man
Committee having completed the process of allocation, the said allocation
cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before
any forum. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances as
raised in different M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings C
and employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before
appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposed
of accordingly.
58. We having found no merit in the objections to One-Man
Committee’s Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 it is obligatory for D
power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and
implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.
Ankit Gyan Miscellaneous Applications disposed of.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "employee allocation"Sign in to search