Supreme Court of India
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS.versusD. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 1065
- Decided
- 11 October 2022
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the One‑Man Committee's final report and the Court's order of 7 December 2020 are binding, and any deviation by the Telangana Power Utilities amounts to willful contempt.
Summary
After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, a One‑Man Committee headed by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari prepared a final report allocating 655 power‑utility employees from each state and the Supreme Court approved it on 7 December 2020. Eighty‑four former Andhra Pradesh power‑utility employees were relieved by their employer and were to be absorbed by the Telangana power utilities as per the approved list. The Telangana utilities issued office orders that omitted these employees, contrary to the Court’s directions. The employees filed a civil contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Supreme Court judgment and the Committee’s report. The Court held that the Committee’s report is binding and the Telangana utilities’ refusal amounts to willful contempt. It ordered the utilities to absorb the employees, pay their salaries and benefits, and gave them two weeks to comply before imposing punishment. The petition was allowed, finding the respondents guilty of contempt.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure of the Telangana Power Utilities to implement the Supreme Court's order and the One‑Man Committee's final report constitutes contempt of court.
- Whether the Supreme Court can compel specific performance, i.e., absorption of employees and payment of salaries, as a remedy for contempt.
- Whether the One‑Man Committee's report and the Court's order are final and binding on the parties.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014s. Section 82
Subjects
contempt of courtemployee allocationstate bifurcationOne‑Man Committeereciprocityfinancial neutralitypower utilitiescivil contemptSupreme Court order compliance
Judgment
1106 [2022]
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 1106
REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS.
v.
D. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) D.No.28852 of 2020)
B OCTOBER 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court– Reorganization of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh, State of Telangana was formed –Government
orders were issued for Distribution, Generation Companies and
C
Transmission Corporation whereby their assets and liabilities were
apportioned between the two new States along with the posts
sanctioned for the employees working in those power sector
corporations/companies – However, the Power Utilities of the two
newly formed States could not arrive at any consensus with regard
D to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel–Power
utilities of Telangana on the principle of nativity unilaterally relieved
employees whose service records mentioned them as resident of any
part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and those who
belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana were
permitted to join– Impugned action set aside by High Court – Order
E
upheld by Supreme Court, however, noticing that two States were
not able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the
modalities for distributing the personnel between two States, One
Man Committee consisting of a former Judge of the Supreme Court
was appointed – It was made clear that the decision of the One
F Man Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties – Present
contempt petition filed by the 84 petitioners-erstwhile employees of
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful
disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed
by Supreme Court– Held: Once the names of the 84 petitioners
figured in the Final List prepared by the One Man Committee and
G
the Final Report was accepted and approved by Supreme Court
and it was directed that both the States and their respective State
Power Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One Man
Committee and Final List prepared and communicated with the Supplementary
Report/Final Report, thereafter any deviation from the same would
H
1106
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1107
ORS.
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by A
Supreme Court –The respective subsequent office orders issued by
the respective Telangana Power Utilities i.e.the TS Genco, TS
Transco, the TSNPDCL and the TSSPDCL are contrary to the
directions issued by Supreme Court and the Supplementary Report/
Final Report submitted by the One Man Committee which would
B
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by
Supreme Court –Again, the Telangana State Power Utilities have
raised the same issues with respect to the Reciprocity and Financial
Neutrality, which were earlier raised before Supreme Court by filing
respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came to be
dismissed by vide order dated 7.12.2020 – Thereafter, to raise the C
same objections/issues again by the Telangana State Power Utilities
would tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued
by Supreme Court –It was purposefully directed to constitute the
One Man Committee consisting of a Former Judge of Supreme Court
to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of the
D
employees and other disputes w.r.t the respective Power Utilities of
both the States –Respective Telangana Power Utilities are guilty of
contemptfor willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment
and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court–Additional
opportunity given to them to comply with the directions issued in
the final judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 and Concluding Final E
Report submitted by the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 and
to absorb all the respective petitioners in the respective Telangana
Power Utilities/establishment as per the list approved by the One
Man Committee –This would have a direct bearing on the
punishment/sentence to be imposed– Salary and other service
F
benefits also to be paid to the petitioners from the day they are
relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited v.
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited
2020 SCC Online SC 995 – referred to.
G
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
D.No.28852 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2020 in MA No.1270
of 2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India.
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi, Colin Gonsalves, Deepak Nargolkar, Sr.
Advs., Y. Raja Gopala Rao, K. Pramod Kumar, Rohan Sharma, Sandeep
Sudhakar Deshmukh, Sravan Kumar, Olivia Bang, Hitendra Nath Rath,
V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta,, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ranjit Kumar, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., D. Abhinav Rao, Ms. Seema
B Bengani, Rajat Nair, Apoorv Karup, Ms. Meera Patel, Manish Kashyap,
B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Puneet Jain, Nishant
Sharma, Deepak Joshi, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the Intervenor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
M. R. SHAH, J.
1.0. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the 84
petitioners – erstwhile employees of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and order
D passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil
Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Miscellaneous Applications in
the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Andhra
Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited reported in 2020 SCC
Online SC 995 non-compliance alleged against the Telangana Power
Utilities (hereinafter referred to as the “TS Power Utilities”).
E
2.0. Shri Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate has
appeared on behalf of the applicants, Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri,
learned Senior Advocates have appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors
– Telangana Power Utilities and Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent- Andhra Pradesh
F Power Utilities.
3.0 Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the applicants has vehemently submitted that by detailed judgment and
orders dated 20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020 this Hon’ble Court accepted the
report submitted by the One Man Committee of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D
G M Dharmadhikari. It is submitted that by an order dated 7.12.2020 this
Court had accepted the Concluding Report of the One Man Committee
and has directed the respondents to implement and absorb all the
employees allocated to TS Power Utilities. However, TS Power Utilities
have arbitrarily and unilaterally left out the petitioners contrary to the
judgment dated 7.12.2020.
H
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1109
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3.1. It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi that a perusal of the judgment A
and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by this Court would show that the
objections of TS Power Utilities, with regard to the excess allocation
and also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of 655 numbers, were
categorically rejected and the final list appended to the Concluding Report
has been expressly affirmed. It is submitted that as such there was an
B
express direction to the power utilities of both the States and all concerned
to implement the report of One Man Committee.
3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate
that a perusal of the Concluding Report of the One Man Committee
makes it explicit that both the Power Utilities have to absorb 655
employees each as per Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is C
submitted that this figure of 655 has also been reiterated by this Court in
the subsequent judgment and order dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that
in the operative directions in the Concluding Report, it has expressly
been stated that allocation made is final and binding both on the employer
and employees; and failure to implement the same may be reported to D
the Supreme Court for remedial or punitive action. It is submitted that
the only exception carved out in the said directions was with regard to
those employees who have attained the age of 58 years in the year
2020, who will be kept out of the allocation process. It is submitted that
none of the petitioners have attained the age of 58 years in the year
2020. E
3.3. It is submitted that all the 84 petitioners figured in the final list
prepared by the One Man Committee. The names of the petitioners
were duly mentioned in the said list, which was prepared utilities wise by
the One Man Committee. It is submitted that as per the final list 28
petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 members had to be F
absorbed in TS Transco, similarly 21 petitioners had to be absorbed in
TS Discoms.
3.4. It is submitted that pursuant to the passing of the Concluding
Report dated 20.06.2020 by the One Man Committee, Andhra Pradesh
Power Utilities have implemented the directions in toto, as per the final G
list annexed to the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 prepared by the
One Man Committee.
3.5. It is submitted that on one hand, the Andhra Pradesh Power
Utilities, while implementing the directions have relived the applicants,
H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A however TS Power Utilities have not absorbed the petitioners, which
action is in teeth of directions issued by this Court accepting One Man
Committee report of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D M Dharmadhikari.
3.6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein ought not have been
dropped by TS Power Utilities in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2020
B because; (I) apparently the names of the petitioners are part of the
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 and allocation list of Direction Nos.II
and III ; (II) none of the petitioners had attained the age of 58 years in
the year 2020 and thus are outside the scope and ambit of Direction
No.I; (III) the relieving orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh Utilities to
petitioners upon being allocated to TS Utilities dated 20.06.2020 in terms
C of Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 are upheld and said allocation
has become final in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2020; (IV) That
TS Power Utilities have truncated the entire allocation by indulging into
re- allocation of retired employees. The lists annexed to office order
have two lists, one of (Employee absorbed), second list comprises of
D those employees who were allocated by One Man Committee to
corresponding Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities and they got expired or
have attained the age of 58 years. It is submitted that said second list is
appended only to cause confusion and none of the employees in the
second list are part of the final lists of TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL
or TSNPDCL as per the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 r/w
E compliance report dated 26.06.2020.
3.7. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate
that despite express directions from this Court read with directions of
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, the respondent contemnors - TS
Power Utilities are in willful disobedience in not having implemented the
F allocation made by the One Man Committee as per the final list, leaving
the petitioners, who were to be absorbed in the power utilities of the
Telangana State high and dry. It is submitted that non-compliance is
borne out by the following:
(I). That the office order dated 17.12.2020 issued by the TS
G Genco which is contrary to the report of the One Man
Committee accepted by this Court;
A. that as per report of the One Man Committee, TS Genco
was to absorb 300 employees in total, from AP Genco;
B. that since TS Genco has already admitted 26 employees in
H terms of Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the total
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1111
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
employees to be admitted by TS Genco ought to be 300 as A
per the judgment dated 7.12.2020;
C. that however, TS Genco has reduced this number of 226
employees and resultantly 28 petitioners are dropped their
allocation to TS Genco held to be absolute and all 28
petitioners have not attained the age of 58 years and thus B
are outside the purview of direction. It is submitted that this
is contrary to the judgment of this Court, the direction no. I
stipulates to exclude retired persons from TS Genco
allocation list annexed to Concluding Report and none of
the petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I;
C
D. that therefore, TS Genco have devised the office order to
circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of the
numbers and truncating the allocation lists and contemnors
are guilty of dropping 28 petitioners, as a result of willful
disobedience of the order of this Court;
D
E. that the list of employees absorbed does not include the 28
petitioners who were already included in the final list of the
One Man Committee. It is submitted that the said lists
annexed to office order are prepared to confuse the tally of
allocation lists and to suppress the fact that TS Genco has
absorbed only 226 (out of 300), a list of 252(226 + 26) has E
been appended to office order to mislead this Court by
repeating the same 26 employees who were already admitted
on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of One Man
Committee. It is submitted that further a list of 48 employees
is appended, these are employees who were never part of F
300 employees allocated to TS Genco and the list is
fraudulently appended, just to display and match the
numbers.
3.8. It is further submitted that similarly office order dated
18.12.2020 issued by the TS Transco is nothing but a willful disobedience G
of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and
7.12.2020 accepting the report of the One Man Committee. It is submitted
that as per the Concluding Report, TS Transco was to absorb 173
employees from AP Transco. It is submitted that since TS Transco had
already admitted 30 employees in terms of Supplementary Report dated
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by TS Transco ought to
be as per the judgment dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that however, TS
Transco has reduced this number to 104 employees and resultantly 35
petitioners are dropped despite their allocation to TS Transco held to be
absolute and all 35 petitioners have not attained the age of 58 years and
thus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is submitted that this is
B
contrary to the judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I only stipulates
to exclude Retired persons from TS Transco list annexed to Concluding
Report and none of the petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.
I. It is submitted that TS Transco issued office order audaciously ignoring
the allocation made under Direction No.II & III as approved by this
C Court. It is submitted that therefore, TS Transco have devised the office
order to circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of the numbers
and truncating the allocation lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping
35 petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the order of this
Court. It is submitted that the list of employees absorbed does not include
the 35 petitioners who were already included in the final list of the One
D
Man Committee. The said lists annexed to office order are prepared to
confuse the tally of allocation lists and suppress the fact that TS Transco
has absorbed only 104 (out of (173 +8), a list of 134 (104 +30) has been
appended to office order to mislead this Court by repeating the same 30
employees who were already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary
E Report of One Man Committee. It is further submitted that the employees
who were never part of 173 employees allocated just to TS Transco and
the list is fraudulently appended to display and match the number.
3.9. It is further submitted that even the office order dated
18.12.2020 issued by the TSNPDCL would also tantamount to contempt
F and willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court.
It is submitted that as per the Concluding Report, TSSPDCL was to
absorb 113 employees from APSPDCL. It is submitted that since
TSSPDCL had already admitted 15 employees in terms of Supplementary
Report dated 11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by
TASSPDCL ought to be (113+2) as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020.
G It is submitted that however, TSSPDCL has reduced this number to 66
employees and resultantly 20 petitioners are dropped despite their
allocation to TSSPDCL held to be absolute and all 20 petitioners have
not attained age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of Direction
I. It is submitted that this is contrary to the judgment of this Court, the
H Direction No.I only stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSSPDCL
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1113
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
Allocation list annexed to the Concluding Report and none of the A
petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that
TSSPDCL issued office order audaciously ignoring the allocation made
under Direction Nos. II & III as approved by this Court. It is submitted
that therefore, TSSPDCL have devised the office order to circumvent
the orders of this Court with jugglery of the numbers and truncating the
B
allocation lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping 20 petitioners as a
result of willful disobedience of the order of this Court. It is submitted
that the list of employees absorbed does not include the 20 petitioners
who were already included in the final list of the One Man Committee.
The said lists annexed to office order are prepared to confuse the tally
of allocation lists and suppress the fact that TSSPDCL has absorbed C
only 66 (out of (113 +2), a list of 81 (66+15) has been appended to office
order to mislead this Court by repeating the same 15 employees who
were already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of One
Man Committee. It is further submitted that the employees who were
never part of 113 employees allocated just to TSSPDCL and the list is
D
fraudulently appended to display and match the number.
3.10. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior
Advocate that the office order dated 19.12.2020 issued by the TSNPDCL
is also in teeth of the judgment and order passed by this Court. It is
submitted that as per the Concluding Report, TSNPDCL was to absorb
69 employees from APLPDCL & APSPDCL. It is submitted that since E
TSNPDCL, the net employees to be admitted by TSSPDCL ought to be
69 as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020. It is submitted that however,
TSNPDCL has reduced this number to 60 employees and resultantly
petitioner no.83 is dropped despite their allocation to TSNPDCL held to
be absolute and the said single petitioner has not attained age of 58 F
years and thus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is submitted that
this is contrary to the judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I only
stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSNPDCL Allocation list
annexed to the Concluding Report and petitioner no.83 is not retired in
terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that therefore, TSNPDCL have
devised the office order to circumvent the orders of this Court with G
jugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation lists and contemnors
are guilty of dropping 1 petitioner as a result of willful disobedience of
the order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of employees absorbed
does not include the petitioner no.83 who was already included in the
final list of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to office H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A order are prepared to confuse the tally of allocation lists and suppress
the fact that TSNPDCL has absorbed only 60 (out of 69), but a list 65
has been appended to office order to mislead this Court. It is further
submitted that the employees who were never part of 69 employees
allocated just to TSNPDCL and the list is fraudulently appended to display
and match the number.
B
3.11. It is submitted that from the above, it is apparent that TS
Power Utilities have not implemented the judgment dated 7.12.2020
passed by this Court. It is submitted that after confirmation of the
Concluding Report of the One Man Committee and allocation lists, this
was only a mechanical exercise of admission of the employees based on
C the lists, but TS Power Utilities have reopened the entire lists and indulged
in unilateral pick and choose.
3.12. It is submitted that in terms of direction VI of the One Man
Committee, the petitioners are to be given posting and joining orders. It
is submitted that the direction issued is followed by Andhra Pradesh
D Power Utilities, but Telangana Power Utilities have unilaterally altered
the allocation lists and have denied posting and joining orders of 84
petitioners.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to punish the respondent/
contemnors Telangana Power Utilities for deliberate and willful
E disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and
7.12.2020 and not acting as per the Concluding Report of the One Man
Committee.
4.0. Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior Advocates
have appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors – Telangana Power
F Utilities. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the TS Power
Utilities that vide order dated 28.11.2019 this Court constituted One Man
Committee headed by Justice D M Dharmadhikari (Retd.) to frame the
modalities and finalize the allocation of employees between the Power
Utilities of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. One Man Committee
determined the modalities and submitted final report dated 26.12.2019
G
allocating 655 employees out of 1157 employees from TS power Utilities
to Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities while retaining 502 employees in TS
Power Utilities, as per the opinion given by them. That aggrieved by the
final report dated 26.12.2019, the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities filed
Miscellaneous Application Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2019 in Civil Appeal
H
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1115
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
No. 11435 of 2019. That this Court by an order dated 24.1.2020 directed A
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to make a representation and same
was to be considered by the One Man Committee and take appropriate
decision.
4.1. It is submitted that in terms of the direction of this Court, an
application was made by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities on 3.2.2020 B
before the One Man Committee and the TS Power Utilities were
submitted their objections. That during the hearing before the One Man
Committee, TS Power Utilities agreed to accommodate 71 employees
from Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouse
and medical grounds. That the One Man Committee vide supplementary
report dated 11.3.2020 allocated 71 employees from Andhra Pradesh C
Power Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouse and medical grounds
etc. and directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to identify remaining
584 employees (655-71 = 584) for allocation from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana, since Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities had accepted 655
employees allocated by TS Power Utilities. Accordingly, the TS Power D
Utilities issued posting orders to 71 employees allocated by
Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. That thereafter Andhra Pradesh
Power Utilities submitted a report of 584 employees allocable from
Andhra Pradesh to Telangana vide their letter dated 12.3.2020. Aggrieved
by the letter dated 12.03.2020 of Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, a
representation was made by TS Power Utilities to the One Man E
Committee to reconsider the list submitted by Andhra Pradesh Power
Utilities being contrary to modalities. It is submitted that at that stage,
One Man Committee filed an application in MA No.915 of 2020 in MA
No.60 of 2020 for payment of salaries pending consideration of objections
made by the TS Power Utilities. The same came to be allowed by order F
dated 8.4.2020. It is submitted that thereafter this Court in Application
made by the TS Power Utilities, by an order dated 1.5.2020 observed
that One Man Committee shall take up the objections and take a decision
at an early date after hearing all the affected persons and further directed
to take steps for payment of salaries to the effected employees within a
period of one week. Accordingly, TS Power Utilities have paid salaries G
to 584 employees who are figuring in the list dated 12.3.2020
communicated by the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to the One Man
Committee.
It is submitted that One Man Committee vide instructions dated
11.5.2020 directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to send their H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A proposed revised list limited to 584 employees, duly taking into
consideration the representations received from the employees. It is
submitted that Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities vide letter dated 26.5.2020
submitted a revised list of 655 employees allocable from Andhra Pradesh
to TS Power Utilities on the principle of reciprocity. It is submitted that
said list includes 71 employees already allocated vide supplementary
B
report dated 11.3.2020 and working TS Power Utilities as on that date.
4.2. It is submitted that thereafter One Man Committee by
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 annexed the revised list dated
26.5.2020 furnished by the Andhra Pradesh and gave further directions.
It is further submitted that One Man Committee held that the allocation
C of 655 employees from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is concluded. It
further observed that at para 28 that allocation list, company wise, post
wise prepared by the Andhra Pradesh for allocation from Andhra Pradesh
to Telangana is approved and in para no.29 suggested the list annexed to
concluding report to be modified in terms of the directions contained
D therein. It is submitted that direction No.I of para No.29 specifies that
the retired employees who attained or will be attaining 58 years of age in
the year 2020 can be kept out of the allocation process and their names
in the allocation lists are to be removed. It is submitted that direction no.
II specifies that the Sub-Committee Member, Andhra Pradesh may re-
examine left out spouse and medical cases and every attempt should be
E made to accommodate them in the State of their option. It is submitted
that direction no.III specifies that all SC/ST employees cases be re-
examined to accommodate them as per Modality VII in the State where
they are notified as SCs and STs so as not to affect their future service
growth.
F 4.3. It is submitted that on the implementation of the Direction
No.I of para 29 of the Concluding Report, the TS Power Utilities have
identified 123 employees who are to be removed from the allocated list
of 655 employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly,
allocated employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is reduced
G from 655 to 532 (655- 123). It is submitted that therefore, correspondingly
532 members are to be allocated from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana
State. It is submitted that out of 532 allocable employees, 71 employees
have already joined and working in TS Power Utilities in terms of the
Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. Accordingly, equal number of
employees i.e. 123 members were removed from the list of allocable
H
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1117
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State on the principle of A
Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality. It is submitted that in the process
of removing 123 members, the 71 employees already allocated have not
been disturbed. Accordingly, 456 employees are allocable from Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana State. In respect of two employees allocable from
Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State, a clarification has been sought for,
B
from the Andhra Pradesh.
4.4. It is submitted that thus the TS Power Utilities have
implemented the judgment dated 7.12.2020 and Concluding Report dated
20.06.2020 of the One Man Committee in its true spirit. It is submitted
that thus, the excess employees relieved from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana State are 83 (615-532=83). C
4.5. It is submitted that in the process of allocation of employees,
One Man Committee has allocated 71 employees working in Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana State on spouse and medical grounds. They were
treated as part of allocable employees in reciprocation of 655 already
allocated to Andhra Pradesh vide Final Report dated 26.12.2019. It is D
submitted that therefore, Andhra Pradesh was directed to identify
remaining 584 (655-71) vide the Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020.
4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction No. II
of Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, the same procedure is to be
followed by the Andhra Pradesh whereas Andhra Pradesh vide letter E
dated 26.8.2020 identified 10 employees, who are shown over and above
allocable 655 employees, which is just contrary to the reports of the One
Man Committee. It is further submitted that it is open for the Andhra
Pradesh to adjust the said employees within the Reciprocation ratio and
in proportion to allocated employees from Telangana State to Andhra F
Pradesh.
4.7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Telangana State
Power Utilities that entire allocation process undertaken by the One
Man Committee is on the principle of reciprocity and the same was
reiterated in para no.21 of the Concluding Report. It is submitted that
G
since 655 employees are already allocated vide Final Report dated
26.12.2019 from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh, equal number were
allocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. It is submitted that
the One Man Committee had taking into consideration of 71 employees
already allocated, directed the Andhra Pradesh to furnish a list of 584
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A employees and the same were included as Annexure to the Concluding
Report. In the process of implementation of Directions of Concluding
Report dated 20.06.2020, 123 employees are deleted by Telangana State.
It is submitted that therefore, the allocable employees from Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana State shall also stand reduced from 655 to 532
(655-123=532). It is submitted that further 10 employees allocated under
B
Direction No.II are to be accommodated within 532 including 71
employees already allocated. However, the Andhra Pradesh has not
undertaken any exercise thereby leading to retention of 83 employees
allocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State, which lead to the
present situation. It is submitted that instead of rectifying the same, Andhra
C Pradesh is seeking to justify their stand by filing intervention petition,
which is unjustified.
4.8. It is further submitted that the principle of reciprocity has
been approved by this Court in its judgment dated 7.12.2020 (para 26, 41
& 42). It is submitted that this Court has further observed that the
D implementation of the direction cannot be termed as modification of the
Concluding Report and both the Power Utilities were directed to
implement the same. It is submitted that thus there is no violation on the
part of the TS Power Utilities in the implementation of the orders dated
7.12.2020.
E Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
contempt petition and to direct Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to retain
the corresponding 83 employees deleted from the list of employees
allocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana duly adhering to the principle
of reciprocity and financial neutrality.
5.0. Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing
F on behalf of the intervenors- Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities has
submitted that the respective alleged contemnors have committed apparent
contempt of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020.
5.1. It is submitted that the allocation list approved by the One
Man Committee in the Final Report dated 20.06.2020 is final and the
G same is to be implemented by the both the Power Utilities without
justifying the allocation list. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities have
devised office orders only to reopen and review the allocation exercise
which is already concluded and approved by this Court (Direction No.I).
5.2. It is submitted that the retired / retiring employees are not
H part of the financial burden as it was agreed by both the sides to keep
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1119
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
them out of allocation exercise. It is submitted that financial neutrality A
was already in place while preparing 655 = 655. It is submitted that
therefor, thereafter it does not lie in mouth of any utility that retired /
retiring employees are financial burden on them.
5.3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment dated
7.12.2020 would show that the objection of TS Power Utilities with regard B
to excess allocation and also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of
655 number were categorically rejected and the final list appended to
the Concluding Report was expressly affirmed. It is submitted that there
is expressed direction to the Power Utilities of both the States and all
concerned to implement the report of the One Man Committee.
C
5.4. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities has been involved in
jugglery of figures and they have brought new figures time and again to
delay and confuse the allocation process.
5.5. It is submitted that in terms of direction (VI) of the One Man
Committee both the TS and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities were D
required to issue order of posting of their joining and granting sufficient
time to the employee to report for duty. It is submitted that the said
direction has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh Utilities, however
Telangana Utilities / Telangana State has unilaterally altered the allocation
list and denied posting and joining orders to 84 petitioners, which is just
contrary to the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 E
and the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is submitted that the
respondent contemnors have disregarded the soul of the allocation
exercise and are in serious willful contempt of this Court.
6.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
The present application has been preferred by the 84 employees of the F
erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities who are relieved by the Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of
the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated
7.12.2020 approving the concluding report / final report submitted by the
One Man Committee consisting of Justice D M Dharmadhikari, Former G
Judge of this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities have already relieved the petitioners.
However, the respondent alleged contemnors - Telangana State Power
Utilities have not permitted the applicants to join the duty in the respective
TS Power Utilities.
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 7.0. Before we proceed further to consider the present application,
the history which led to constitute of a One Man Committee and
chronological list and events are required to be referred to and which as
such had been ultimately dealt with and considered by this Court in the
judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil
Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Applications, which are as
B
under:
At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the
dispute is concerning the employees of the Telangana State Power
Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
C 7.1 The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 was enacted
by Parliament to provide for the reorganization of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. By Section 3,
Telangana State was formed 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. Section
D 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 reads as under:
“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
E undertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a period
of one year and during this period the corporate body
concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the
personnel between the two successor States.”
7.2. The State of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh issued government
F orders for Distribution Companies, for Generation Companies and for
Transmission Corporation whereby assets and liabilities of the aforesaid
corporations and companies were apportioned between the two new
States along with the posts sanctioned for the employees working in
those power sector corporations/companies. However, the Power Utilities
G of the two newly formed States (Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities and
Telangana Power Utilities) 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 of Telangana to join in respective power utilities of Andhra
Pradesh. Number of employees filed writ petitions in High Court
H
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1121
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
challenging the decision of the power utilities of Telangana. 242 A
employees, who were working in power utilities of Andhra Pradesh got
themselves relieved and joined in power utilities of 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
B
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 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 C
the principle of nativity, which was the factor for allocation of the
employees by the Telangana State power utilities.
7.3. The matter reached to this Court and 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 D
for distributing the personnel between two States, appointed One Man
Committee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge
of this Court. In the order dated 28.11.2018 this Court specifically made
it clear that the decision of the One Man Committee 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 E
as an order of this Court. This Court also observed 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.
7.4. That thereafter, after considering the representation by all F
concerned and the respective stake holders, the Committee 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. Thereafter, the Telangana Power Generation
Corporation Limited filed an application questioning the modalities G
finalised by One-Man Committee. However, this Court did not entertain
the said application. That thereafter, a report title as “Final Report of
One-Man Committee” dated 26.12.2019 was submitted by One-Man
Committee. Along with the report, a final allocation list in the two States
corporations/companies was prepared and annexed. List of 655 personnel,
H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 part of the
final list. That the Andhra Pradesh utilities were aggrieved by the final
list communicated in the final report filed Interlocutory Applications. It
was the case on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities that the
B
modalities have not been correctly implemented and the list annexed is
not in accordance with the modalities. This Court disposed of the said
application with 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
D 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 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
E man committee. The representation be submitted within two
weeks and response thereto be also submitted within two weeks
thereafter.”
7.5. After the order dated 24.01.2020, the One-Man Committee
after deliberations with all stakeholders submitted a Supplementary Report
F 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
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
G handicapped employees or their dependents.
7.6. In the Supplementary Report, the One-Man Committee
directed that the entire allocation process based on the allocation list
with the Final Report and Supplementary Report be completed by
30.03.2020. A clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by the
H One-Man Committee. Aggrieved by Supplementary Report, the
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1123
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
Telangana power utilities filed Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of A
2020 with regard to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified
by Sub-Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh. This Court disposed
of the said application observing that the objections with regard to 584
employees were to be considered by One Man Committee.
7.7. One-Man Committee after the order of this Court dated B
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
from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including 71 names from Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases like spouse C
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
Concluding Report, directions are to the following effect:
“Directions: D
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 States, employees who have attained or will be attaining
58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the E
allocation process and their names in the Allocation Lists will
be removed.
II. In the allocation process of the present dimension and
undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the
Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts and F
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 any G
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 reexamined 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 growth.
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 States in the interim period pending finalization of
allocation during coronavirus pandemic, will be shared/
B
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 burden of salary and arrears of salary for each
employee would be on the Company to which the employee is
C 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.
V. All employees not included in the Allocation List of AP and
TS and serving on “order to serve” basis in the Companies
D 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.
VI. Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP utilities will
issue orders of posting and joining, with granting sufficient
E 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.
VII. All Employers of the Power Utilities in the Two States will
F 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.
G 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.”
7.8. After the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, a member of
the Sub-Committee of Andhra Pradesh power utilities sent a letter dated
H
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1125
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
26.06.2020 as compliance report. By the said letter, 119 employees, who A
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
Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities and 10 further
employees were relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for the
B
reasons mentioned therein.
After submission of the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 and
follow-up action taken by the Andhra Pradesh Power utilities, number
of miscellaneous applications have been filed by Telangana State Power
Utilities, by several employees as well as employees’ associations. The
Telangana State Power Utilities Generation Corporation prays for the C
following reliefs:
“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 D
the Hon’ble One-Man Committee.
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 E
utilities), as Final in terms of the Order dt. 28.11.2018 passed
in present Civil Appeal. 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. F
d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far as Para
No.27, 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. G
e) Clarify the orders dated 28-11-2018 in Civil Appeal No.
11435 of 2018 passed by this Hon’bIe Court; and
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
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 7.9. Similar prayers were made by other Telangana Power Utilities.
That by a detailed order dated 7.12.2020, this Court dismissed the
Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Telangana State Power Utilities.
While dismissing the respective Miscellaneous Applications filed by the
Telangana State Power Utilities which were dismissed after considering
in detailed the rival submissions/ objections against the final report dated
B
20.06.2020, certain observations are made by this Court, which are very
relevant while considering the present application, which are as under:
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
C approved by the One- Man Committee 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
D 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 of allocable employees to
be considered by this Court in these proceedings.
E 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 have been
allocated from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra
Pradesh power utilities. The applicants have repeatedly
F 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 of Andhra Pradesh Sub-
G 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
H claimed by the applicant.
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1127
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to the A
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
B
Court and was 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 C
allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities apart from
655 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
D
addition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.
43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number of
self-relieved 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 E
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 Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, which F
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 are now being G
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. H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 and
answered by the One-Man Committee in paragraphs
25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Concluding Report, which is
B
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 proposing allocation
C 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
D Supplementary Report, this Committee had identified
2165 employees bused on 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.
E 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 modalities no. I to IV are to
be cumulatively taken into consideration and applied
to make allocation in proportion to the available
F 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
Report. The remaining 470 employees (falling outside
G 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
H companies.
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1129
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
28. In the above circumstances, mentioned above, A
this Committee finds the Allocation Lists
company-wise and post-wise proposed by AP
deserves approval and it is so approved.”
48. Now, one more objection of the applicants, which needs
to be noticed is the objection that even the Concluding B
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 Report,
which is to the following effect:-
C
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 States, employees
who have attained or will be attaining 58 Years of
age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation D
process and their names in the Allocation Lists will
be removed.
II. In the allocation process of the present dimension
and undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible
for the Committee to satisfy individual needs and E
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 F
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 reexamined to G
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 growth.
49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One Man
Committee that those who have attained or will be
H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A 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 in paragraph 21, the One-Man Committee has
stated:-
B “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.”
50. The above indicates that both the parties had agreed
C 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
D 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 the extension till the end of 2020 cannot
be said to be unreasonable. The allocation process
E 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 liability. The direction No.I is equitable.
F 51. The applicants further submit 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 power utilities. We
are of the view that the said dropping is only
G 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 outgoing from Andhra Pradesh
H power utilities to Telangana State power utilities, which
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1131
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
was again in compliance of the One-Man Committee’s A
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 Report has to be taken to its logical ends.
B
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 C
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
D
20.06.2020. The One- Man Committee being aware of
all objections and having taken a conscious decision to
finalise the allocation between two States, we do not find
any such error in the process which may warrant any
clarification or direction by this Court. We may further
notice that the exercise undertaken by the One-Man E
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 disturbed
F
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, G
same number should go from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana State. In the 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 H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A Applications filed by Telangana State power utilities
being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which
are dismissed.”
8.0. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that this Court specifically
observed and held that the Final Report dated 26.12.2019 submitted by
B the One Man Committee along with allocation list is final and conclusive
and is binding to both the States and respective Power Utilities viz.
Telangana Power Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities. The
only exception was with respect to those employees who attained the
age of 58 years in the year 2020. Those employees with the consent of
the respective Power Utilities were kept out of allocation process. It is
C to be noted that the respective applicants – 84 petitioners figured in the
final list prepared by One Man Committee. The names of the petitioners
are duly mentioned in the said list of the One Man Committee Report
which is prepared Utilities wise. Out of 84 petitioners and as per the
Final List of 28 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 petitioners
D had to be absorbed in TS Transco and 21 petitioners had to be absorbed
in TS Discoms. As observed herein above, the respective Andhra Pradesh
Power Utilities have already relieved respective petitioners and thereafter
they are no more continued with their erstwhile employers – Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities respectively. Therefore, once the names of the
84 petitioners figured in the Final List prepared by the One Man
E Committee and the Final Report has been accepted and approved by
this Court and it is directed that both the States and their respective
State Power Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One Man
Committee and Final List prepared and communicated with the
Supplementary Report / Final Report, thereafter any deviation from the
F same would tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued
by this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the earlier
order, this Court has specifically observed and made it clear that the
decision of the One Man Committee shall be final and binding on all the
parties including the Power Utilities Companies of the two States as
well as employees and shall be executed by all the parties as an order of
G this Court. In that view of the matter, the respective subsequent office
orders dated 17.12.2020 (issued by the TS Genco), office order dated
18.12.2020 (issued by the TS Transco), office order dated 18.12.2020 (
issued by the TSNPDCL) and the office order dated 19.12.2020 (issued
by the TSSPDCL) are just contrary to the directions issued by this Court
H and contrary to the Supplementary Report / Final Report submitted by
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & 1133
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 which would tantamount to A
willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. Again, the
Telangana State Power Utilities have raised the same issues with respect
to the Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality, which were earlier raised
before this court by filing respective Miscellaneous Applications and
same came to be dismissed by this court vide order dated 7.12.2020.
B
Thereafter, to raise the same objections / issues again by the Telangana
State Power Utilities would tantamount to willful disobedience of the
directions issued by this Court. Telangana State Power Utilities cannot
be permitted to raise the same objections / issues again and again, which
were earlier raised before this Court and this Court held against the
Telangana State Power Utilities. There must be an end to a litigation. By C
permitting the Telangana State Power Utilities and /or any other parties
to raise the issues / objections again and again, the object and purpose of
constituting One Man Committee by this Court would be frustrated.
This Court purposefully directed to constitute the One Man Committee
consisting of Mr. Justice D M Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this
D
Court to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of the
employees and other disputes with respect to the respective Power Utilities
of both the States. It is very unfortunate that the State of Telangana and
Telangana Power Utilities have continued to re-agitate the issues, which
are already held against them earlier.
9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we E
hold the respective Telangana Power Utilities for willful and deliberate
disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated
7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and
other allied Miscellaneous Applications and we hold them guilty for the
contempt for the same, for which, they are liable to be suitably punished. F
At this stage, it is required to be noted that as observed herein above, the
petitioners are already relieved by the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
since long and because of the aforesaid office orders the respective
petitioners are not permitted to join in the respective Telangana Power
Utilities and their future is at stake and they are without any salary from
the date they are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power G
Utilities. Before we pass any further order on the sentence / punishment,
we give one additional opportunity to the respective Telangana Power
Utilities i.e. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to comply
with the directions issued by this Court in the final judgment and order
dated 7.12.2020 and Concluding Final Report submitted by the One Man H
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 10 S.C.R.
A Committee dated 20.06.2020 and to absorb all the respective petitioners
in the respective Telangana Power Utilities / establishment as per the
list approved by the One Man Committee which would have a direct
bearing on the punishment / sentence to be imposed. We give further
two weeks’ time to respective Telangana Power Utilities / Corporation
to absorb the petitioners. We also direct the respective Telangana Power
B
Utilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to pay
salary and other service benefits to the petitioners from the day they are
relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, to be
implemented within two weeks.
Put up on 31.10.2022 for further order.
C
Divya Pandey Directions issued.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search