TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO) versus ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO (S). 1270/2020 IN on 7 December 2020

TELANGANA POWER GENERATIONCORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO)

v.

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATIONCORPORATION LTD.

Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1270/2020

In(Civil Appeal No (s). 11435/2018)

DECEMBER 07, 2020.

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Service Law – Allocation of employees – Andhra PradeshReorganisation Act, 2014 – ss.3,4 and 82 – Dispute relating toallocation of the employees of the power sector undertakings in theStates of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh arose in wake of thedivision of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States,namely, the State of Telangana and the residuary State of AndhraPradesh – The power utilities of the two newly formed States couldnot arrive at any consensus with regard to modalities for allocationand distribution of personnel – The power utilities of Telanganaunilaterally relieved 1157 employees working with power utilitiesof Telangana to join in respective power utilities of Andhra Pradesh– The power utilities of Telangana were motivated by principle ofnativity, i.e., those employees whose service records mentioned themas resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradeshwere relieved and those who belonged to territory of the newlyformed State of Telangana were permitted to join at Telangana bytheir self-option, against which writ petition was filed before theHigh Court – The High Court by its judgment dated 02.02.2018allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned action of powerutilities of Telangana relieving 1157 employees and issued furtherdirections – In appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment ofthe High Court and with the agreement of the parties entrusted thetask to one-Man Committee for distributing the personnel betweenthe States – The process which was initiated by submitting FinalReport dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by SupplementaryReport dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020– In the Concluding Report, an allocation list submitted by Andhra

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

APradesh utilities was approved – The Committee noticed that 655employees were allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradeshand equal numbers from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including71 names from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, which was held to beof special cases like spouse and medical cases – Certain furtherdirections were given by the One-Man Committee along with theBconcluding report – Various Miscellaneous applications were filed– There were various objections against the One-Man Committeereport – Held: The One-Man Committee being aware of all objectionsand having taken a conscious decision to finalise the allocationbetween two States, there is no error in the process which mayCwarrant any clarification or direction – Applicants have takenexception to reciprocity of 655 number – There is no error inreciprocity – The One-Man Committee took a decision that when655 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-Dwise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous – Thus,power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out andimplement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.

Service Law – Allocation of employees – Andhra PradeshReorganisaiton Act, 2014 – ss.3,4 and 82 – Challenge to allocationEdone by One-Man Committee – Held: In the instant case, the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnelbetween the two States, which distribution has been finalised by theOne-Man Committee – Insofar as the allocation made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or Fofficer is entertainable, it was further clarified that the One-ManCommittee having completed the process of allocation, the saidallocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or anyutility before any forum.

Disposing of the Miscellaneous Applications, the CourtG

Conclusion

HELD: 1. One objection of the applicants, which needs tobe noticed is the objection that even the Concluding Report dated20.06.2020 is not final report and Sub-Committee Member ofAndhra Pradesh has been authorised to modify the list. Applicantshave referred to direction Nos. I, II and III of the ConcludingHReport. Now, taking note of the direction No.I of the One-Man Committee that those who have attained or will be attaining 58Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocationprocess and their names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.According to the Supplementary report, both the parties hadagreed before the One-Man Committee that all retired employeesbetween years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility in each Stateneed not be displaced. Thus, the above was agreement betweenboth the parties before the One-Man Committee and directionNo.I only an extension of the said agreement, i.e., whoever shallbe attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall be kept out of allocationprocess. As per paragraph 21 of the Supplementary Report, those,who retire till then were already kept out of the allocation andthe extension till the end of 2020 cannot be said to beunreasonable. The allocation process being not yet finalised andawaiting finalisation for last several years, those who retire eitherin Telangana State or Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decidednot to be displaced only for the purpose of shouldering pensionaryliability. The direction No.I is equitable. [Paras 48, 49 and50][1025-A-B, F-G; 1026-A-C]

2. The applicants submitted that after the ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020, AndhraPradesh power utilities have struck 119 names from the incoming655 list from the Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradeshpower utilities. This Court is of the view that the said dropping isonly consequential to the decision of the One-Man Committeeas reflected in paragraph 21 of Supplementary Report anddirection No.I of Concluding Report. The Andhra Pradesh powerutilities have also deleted 50 names from the list of 584 employeesoutgoing from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana Statepower utilities, which was again in compliance of the One-ManCommittee’s decision. Any consequential action taken inpursuance of the Concluding Report cannot be said to be notcontemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannot be saidto be an open ended report. The consequence of ConcludingReport has to be taken to its logical ends. Further, 10 employeeshave been added by direction Nos. II and the reasons have beengiven in the letter dated 26.06.2020 for relieving them, which isagain consequence of direction Nos.I and II. This Court, thus, isof the view that the One-Man Committee has considered all AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amaterials and objections placed before it by both sides includingthe representation of the employees and employees organisationssubmitted from time to time. The process which was initiated bysubmitting Final Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented bySupplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Reportdated 20.06.2020. The One-Man Committee being aware of allBobjections and having taken a conscious decision to finalise theallocation between two States, this Court does not find any sucherror in the process which may warrant any clarification ordirection by this Court. This Court may further notice that theexercise undertaken by the One-Man Committee is to allocateC655 from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and same numberfrom Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Apart from the abovetwo allocations, other personnel, who were working in TelanganaState and Andhra Pradesh were not disturbed by allocation.[Para 51][1026-D-H; 1027-A-B]

D3. The applicants have also taken exception to reciprocityof 655 number. This Court does not find that there is any error inreciprocity. The One-Man Committee took a decision that when655 employees are coming from Telangana State to AndhraPradesh, same number should go from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana State. In the Concluding Report, final list has beenEannexed, which is utility-wise and personnel-wise, which is clearand unambiguous. This Court, thus, does not find any merit inthe Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State powerutilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which aredismissed. [Para 52][1027-B-D]

F

4. With regard to other M.A.s, this Court makes it clearthat the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distributionof personnel between the two States, which distribution has beenfinalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocationmade by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge byGany employee or officer is entertainable, this Court clarifies thatthe One-Man Committee having completed the process ofallocation, the said allocation cannot be challenged by anyemployee or officer or any utility before any forum. Insofar asother claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in differentM.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings andH

employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claimsbefore appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.sare 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 ApplicationNo. 1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 of the SupremeCourt of India in Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018.

With

Miscellaneous Application No (s).1286/2020 in Civil AppealNo (s). 11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application….Diary No. 13844/2020in Civil Appeal No (s).11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s).1287/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11435/2018, Miscellaneous ApplicationNo (s). 1290/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s).11436/2018, MiscellaneousApplication 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 AppealNo (s). 11437/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s). 1289/2020 in CivilAppeal No (s). 11435/2018, Miscellaneous Application No (s).1293/2020 in Civil Appeal No(s).11440/2018, MiscellaneousApplication…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 CivilAppeal No (s). 11453/2018, Miscellaneous Application….Diary No.19982/2020 in Civil Appeal No (s). 11453/2018.

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, RanaMukherjee, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., D. AbhinavRao, Harsh Parashar, Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey, SandeepSudhakar Deshmukh, Sachin Sharma, Ms. Sujata Bagadhi, VenkateswaraRao Anumolu, Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala, Deepak Kumar Singh, SravanKumar, 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, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADeepak 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, AmitabhSinha, 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 LawBAssociates, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed in CivilCAppeal No.11435 of 2018 decided by this Court vide judgment dated28.11.2018. Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 was filed against the commonjudgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature atHyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradeshin Writ Petition No.17994 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions.D

2. The High Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 decided thebunch of writ petitions raising the dispute pertaining to allocation of theemployees of the power sector undertakings in the States of Telanganaand Andhra Pradesh. The disputes arose in the wake of the division ofthe erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, namely, the StateEof Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh by AndhraPradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. This Court vide its judgment dated28.11.2018 while upholding the judgment of the High Court with theagreement of the learned counsel for the parties appointed a One-ManCommittee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judgeof this Court for distributing the personnel between two States. AfterFthe judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2018, One-Man Committeeproceeded to formulate the modalities for distributing the personnel,prepared the reports allocating the personnel at several stages. Themiscellaneous applications were filed in this Court in the civil appeal inpursuance of the liberty granted by this Court in its judgment datedG28.11.2018 permitting the parties to approach the Court by filing aninterlocutory application, if any, clarification or further directions wererequired.

3. The present set of miscellaneous applications have been filedby Telangana Power Utilities, certain employees and employees’associations after submission of the concluding report dated 20.06.2020Hby the One-Man Committee.

4. Before we proceed to consider the present set of miscellaneousapplications, it is necessary to notice the genesis of dispute.

5. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisaiton Act, 2014 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2014”) was enacted by Parliament to provide forthe reorganisation of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh and for mattersconnected therewith. By Section 3, Telangana State was formedcomprising of the territories mentioned therein and by virtue of Section4, the State of Andhra Pradesh was to comprise the territories of theexisting state of Andhra Pradesh. In the present case, we are concernedonly with power utilities. Related provision for employees of public sectorundertaking is contained in Section 82, which is to the following effect:- “82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings,etc.—On and from the appointed day, the employees of StatePublic Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomousbodies shall continue to function in such undertaking, corporationor autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during thisperiod the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalitiesfor distributing the personnel between the two successor States.”

6. 02.06.2014 was notified as the appointed date under the AndhraPradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. In the United State of AndhraPradesh, existing power utilities where Andhra Pradesh GenerationCorporation, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation and four PowerDistribution Companies described as Eastern, Southern, Central andNorthern DISCOMS. The State of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh issuedGovernment Orders dated 29.05.2014, No.24 for Distribution Companies,Government Order No.25 for Generation Companies and GovernmentOrder No.26 for Transmission Corporation whereby assets and liabilitiesof the aforesaid corporations and companies were apportioned betweenthe two new States alongwith the posts sanctioned for the employeesworking in those power sector corporations/companies. The powerutilities of the two newly formed States could not arrive at any consensuswith regard to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel.

7. The power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved 1157employees working with power utilities of Telangana to join in respectivepower utilities of Andhra Pradesh. Number of employees filed writpetitions in High Court challenging the decision of the power utilities ofTelangana. 242 employees, who were working in power utilities of AndhraPradesh got themselves relieved and joined in power utilities of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ATelangana. The power utilities of Telangana were motivated by principleof nativity, i.e., those employees whose service records mentioned themas resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh wererelieved and those who belonged to territory of the newly formed Stateof Telangana were permitted to join at Telangana by their self-option,against which writ petition was filed before the High Court. The HighBCourt by its common judgment dated 02.02.2018 allowed the writ petitions,set aside the impugned action of power utilities of Telangana relieving1157 employees and issued further directions. The High Court specificallydisapproved the principle of nativity, which was the factor for allocationof the employees by the Telangana State power utilities.C

8. Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited filed CivilAppeal No. 11435/2018 questioning the judgment of High Court. ThisCourt upheld the order of the High Court, however, noticing that twoStates have not been able to arrive at any consensus and to finallydetermine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two States,Dthis Court with the agreement of the parties entrusted the task to One-Man Committee, i.e., Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge ofthis Court. While ending the order dated 28.11.20218, this Court furtherclearly stated:- “We make it clear that the decision of the one manECommittee head by Justice Dharmadhikari shall be final and bindingon all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the twoStates as well as the employees and shall be executed by all theparties as an order of this Court.”

9. This Court, however, while disposing the appeal had observedFthat in case, any clarification or further direction is required by any ofthe parties they are entitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutoryapplication in the proceedings. One-Man Committee constituted a sub-Committee consisting of two members representing one each of thepower utilities of both the States. Many employees, individuals alsoappeared and filed representations before the Committee. The CommitteeGon 17.04.2019 had finalised XIV modalities to be adopted for allocationof the personnel between two States in accordance with Section 82 ofthe Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Telangana PowerGeneration Corporation Limited filed an application being M.A. No. 851of 2019 questioning the modalities finalised by One-Man Committee.HHowever, this Court did not entertain the application. A report cited as “Final Report of One-Man Committee” dated 26.12.2019 was submittedby One-Man Committee. Alongwith report, a final allocation list in thetwo States corporations/companies was prepared and annexed. List of655 personnel, who were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradeshutilities as submitted by sub-Committee Members on behalf of Telanganautilities was approved by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee and waspart of the final list. The Andhra Pradesh utilities being felt aggrieved bythe 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 theapplicant that they have no grievance with regard to modalities. Theirsubmission was that the modalities have not been correctly implementedand the list annexed is not in accordance with the modalities. Theapplications were disposed of by this Court on 24.01.2020. This Courtwhile disposing the applications made following observations:- “This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the workof allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, themodalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all, towhich, there is no dissension between the parties. There being nodispute regarding modalities, in event, there is some error ormistake in the working of the modalities that can be pointed out tothe same committee by means of a representation and we hopeand trust that the committee shall look into the said grievance andcorrect the error, if any. We also make it clear that if therepresentation is submitted by the applicant, copy of the sameshall be given to the power utilities of both the Sates, who mayalso have liberty to submit a response to those representation,which may be considered by the one man committee. Therepresentation be submitted within two weeks and response theretobe also submitted within two weeks thereafter.”

10. After the order dated 24.01.2020, the One-Man Committeeafter deliberations with all stakeholders submitted a Supplementary Reportdated 11.03.2020. In the Supplementary Report, it was noticed that T.S.power utilities relieved employees numbering total 655 to join A.P. powerutilities. It also noted that Telangana Power Utilities are agreeable toaccommodate 71 employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana Statecompanies as they are special cases like of spouses, medical andhandicapped employees or their dependants.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A11. In the Supplementary Report, the One-Man Committeeentrusted the work to the member of the Sub-Committee representingAndhra Pradesh side, of identification of 584 employees for allocatingthem from A.P. power utilities to T.S. power utilities. One-Man Committeealso issued directions for payment of salary for 655 employees, whowere relieved from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh. One-ManBCommittee directed that entire allocation process based on the allocationlists with the Final Report and Supplementary Report be completed by30.03.2020. A clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by the One-Man Committee. Aggrieved by Supplementary Report, the Telanganapower utilities filed Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2020. WithCregard to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified by Sub-Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh, this Court disposed of theapplication observing that objections with regard to 584 employees wereto be considered by One Man Committee. On an application submittedby One-Man Committee, this Court also passed an order for payment ofsalary to the allocated employees.D

12. One-Man Committee after the order of this Court dated01.05.2020 issued a Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. In theConcluding Report, an allocation list submitted by Andhra Pradesh utilitieswas approved. The Committee noticed that 655 employees have beenallocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and equal numbersEfrom Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including 71 names from AndhraPradesh to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases like spouseand medical cases. Certain further directions were given by the One-Man Committee in the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approvingthe list of Sub-Committee Members of the Andhra Pradesh. In theFConcluding Report, directions are to the following effect:-

DIRECTIONS

I.In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21 of theSupplementary Report of this Committee regarding retiredemployees on both sides, it is further directed, that in bothGthe States, employees who have attained or will be attaining58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of theallocation process and their names in the Allocation Listswill be removed.

II.In the allocation process of the present dimension andHundertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts andservice prospects of every employee. The allocation processhas been finalized on laid down principles contained in themodalities and elbow room, wherever permissible, in themodalities has been given effect to. The committee howeverdirects the Sub Committee member of AP to re-examineany left out spouse and medical cases and every attemptshould be made to accommodate them in the state of theiroption.

III.All SC/ST employees cases be re-examined to accommodatethem as per modality VIII in the State where they arenotified as SCs or STs so as not to affect their future servicegrowth.

IV.All the employees finally allocated to a Public Utility will bepaid regular salary from January 2020 and arrears of salarydue with other benefits attached to the posts. The paymentsof salary partly or fully made by the Companies in the TwoStates in the interim period pending finalization of allocationduring coronavirus pandemic, will be shared/reimbursed bythe companies in the Two States mutually by paying andclaiming reimbursement, if necessary, for the paymentsmade in the interim period. It is made clear that the entireburden of salary and arrears of salary for each employeewould be on the Company to which the employee is finallyallocated and the said Company will reimburse interimpayments pending allocation made if any by the Companyto which the employee has not been finally allocated.

V. All employees not included in the Allocation List of AP andTS and serving on “order to serve” basis in the Companieson the formation of the Two States in 2014 would be deemedto have been allocated to the Company where they arepresently posted and working.

VI.Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP utilities willissue orders of posting and joining, with granting sufficienttime to the employees to report for duties, keeping intoconsideration the constrains on movements in the currentcoronavirus pandemic period and the consequent lockdownimposed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AVII.All Employers of the Power Utilities in the Two States willfacilitate smooth posting and joining of employees in theCompanies of the Two States and the Government and thePolice Authorities of Two States will cooperate and alsofacilitate the movement of the employees allocated fromone Company in the State to Company in another Slate.B

VIII. The allocation finally made by this committee is binding onboth the employers and the employees and any violationthereof and non implementation of said allocation be reportedto Supreme Court for remedial/Punitive action.”

C13. After the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, a member ofthe Sub-Committee of Andhra Pradesh power utilities sent a letter dated26.06.2020 as compliance report. By the said letter, 119 employees, whowere dropped from the list of incoming employees from Telangana Statepower utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities and further 50 nameswere dropped of employees in outgoing list of employees from AndhraDPradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities and 10 furtheremployees were relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for thereasons mentioned therein.

14. After the submission of the Concluding Report and follow-upaction taken by the Andhra Pradesh power utilities, this group ofEmiscellaneous applications have been filed. The miscellaneous applicationshave been filed by Telangana State power utilities, by several employeesas well as employees’ associations in M.A. No. 1286/2020 filed byTelangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd., a common counteraffidavit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The M.A.FNo. 1286 of 2020 as well as counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavitfiled therein shall be referred to while deciding these batch ofmiscellaneous applications.

15. We may now briefly notice prayers made in differentMiscellaneous Applications placed before us for consideration:- GM.A. No. 1270/2020

M.A. No. 1270 of 2020 is a miscellaneous application which wasregistered by Court’s Motion on Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020sent by One-Man Committee to this Court.

H

M.A. DIARY NO. 13844/2020

This M.A. Diary has been filed by T.N. Sudhakara Murthy and32 others seeking a direction to A.P. and T.S. utilities not to give effectto direction No.I of the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. They seekdirection to A.P. power utilities to retain the applicants as per their options.

M.A. NO. 1286/2020

M.A. No.1286 of 2020 has been filed by Telangana State PowerGeneration Corporation Ltd. The M.A. questions the Concluding Reportdated 20.06.2020 submitted by One-Man Committee. In the M.A.following prayers have been made:- “a) Clarify that the Concluding Report dated 20-06-2020 submittedby the Hon’ble One-Man Committee is illegal and arbitrary, beingcontrary to the Orders passed by this Hon’ble court and the FinalReport dated 26-12-2019 submitted by the Hon’ble One-ManCommittee.

b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees and 242 employeesmade by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee as per Final Reportdt. 26-12-2018, (i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502 +242) to TS PowerUtilities and 655 from TS to AP Power utilities), as Final in termsof the Order dt. 28.11.2018 passed in present Civil Appeal.

c) Clarify that the allocation of 4460 and 71 employees (4531) toTS Power Utilities vide Final Report dt. 26.12.2019 andSupplementary Report dt. 11.03.2020, is final and no furtherallocation to TS Power Utilities is Permissible.

d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far as Para No.27,authorizing the Member, Sub-committee of AP to unilaterallyidentify and allocate 584 employees to TS Power Utilities iscontrary 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. 11435of 2018 passed by this Hon’bIe Court; and

f) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit andappropriate by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstancesof the present case.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AM.A. NO.1287/2020

This M.A. has been filed by APSPDCL relieved employees(allotted to TSNPDCL). The applicants claimed to be permanentemployees of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Companynow allocated to Telangana State Northern Power Distribution CompanyBLtd. The applicants question their allotment to TSNPDCL. The applicantscase is that they were not included in the employees allocated by FinalReport dated 26.12.2019. Their names have suddenly come in ConcludingReport for allocation. The applicants claimed that allocation of employeesof APSPDCL working in Kurnool and Ananthapur Districts were to befinally allocated in terms of G.O. No.24 dated 29.05.2014 and they oughtCnot 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 toOne-Man Committee and approved by One-Man Committee byConcluding Report dated 20.06.2020 be got recalled and rescinded.DM.A. NO. 1290/2020

This M.A. has been filed by Transmission Corporation ofTelangana Ltd. The prayers made in the application are similar to thosemade in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.

M.A. NO. 1292/2020E

This M.A. has been filed by Telangana Southern PowerDistribution Corporation Ltd. (TSSPDCL). The prayers made in thisM.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 GenerationCorporation Ltd. (TSGENCO). The prayers made in the applicationare similar to prayers made in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.

M.A. NO. 1291/2020

This M.A. has been filed by Telangana State Northern PowerDistribution Corporation Ltd. (TSNPDCL). The prayers made in theapplication are similar as made in M.A. No.1286 of 2020.

G

M.A. NO. 1289/2020

This M.A. has been filed by Transmission Corporation ofHTelangana Ltd. (TSTRANSCO). The applicants’ case is that they have been working throughout in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Theapplicants’ names have been included in the list of 584 employeesallocated by Andhra Pradesh power utilities to be allocated to Telanganapower utilities. In pursuance of the Supplementary Report, the applicantsclaimed to be relieved w.e.f. 14.03.2020 but were not permitted to joinby Telangana power utilities. The list of 584 employees submitted byAndhra Pradesh power utilities have been approved by One-ManCommittee in the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The applicantsprayed that Supplementary report and Concluding Report be modifiedand revised directing the respondents to accommodate the applicants inAndhra Pradesh power utilities.

M.A. NO. 1293/2020

M.A. NO. 1293/2020

This M.A. has been filed by Telangana Electricity EngineersAssociation & Ors. The applicants take exception to the ConcludingReport of the One-Man Committee. The applicants prayed that allocationbe restricted till Supplementary Report only by rejecting the ConcludingReport. In the M.A. applicants prayed for confirmation of allocation of1157 employees and 242 employees made by One-Man CommitteeReport dated 26.12.2019. The applicants also had pleaded that the FinalReport, Supplementary Report and Concluding Report are contradictoryto each other and are irreconcilable to the extent it goes beyond 1157employees.

M.A. DIARY NO. 16612/2020

This M.A. Diary has been filed by Ande Jagdish and three otherEngineers seeking a direction to TSTRANSCO and APTRANSCO topay pension/salary to the applicants. The applicants seek direction toimplement the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One-ManCommittee. The applicant also prays for being impleaded in Civil AppealNo.11435/2018.

M.A. NO. 1631/2020

This M.A. has been filed by L. Praveenkumar Reddy and sevenother Engineers praying for a direction to Andhra Pradesh and TelanganaState utilities not to give effect the direction No.I of the ConcludingReport submitted by One-Man Committee. The applicants also prayedfor a direction to A.P. power utilities to retain the applicants as per theiroptions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AM.A. DIARY NO.19295/2020

This M.A. Diary No.19295 of 2020 has been filed by KesanaBabu Rao & 36 Ors., who claimed to be employees continued in serviceson the rolls of TSGENCO till 04.01.2020 where after they were relievedin pursuance of Final Report dated 26.12.2019 of the One-ManBCommittee. The applicants claimed that they have been denied paymentof certain amounts like SGP Increments, Annual Increments, GenerationIncentives, House Rent Allowance, Conveyance allowance, Promotionsand Promotion increments, 24x7 power supply increments etc. Theapplicants claimed that their further re-allotment, who presently standallotted to Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited asCper the Final Report dated 26.12.2019, the Supplementary Report dated11.03.2020 and the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One-Man Committee.

M.A. DIARY NO.19982/2020

DThis application has been filed by J.V.V. Suresh Kumar and Othersseeking 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 theTelangana State power utilities. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned seniorEcounsel has appeared on behalf of Andhra Pradesh power utilities.Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel has appeared for TelanganaElectricity Engineers Association. We have also heard ShriR. Balasubramanian and Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned senior counsel.Shri Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala and other learned counsel appearing forthe parties.F

17. We now proceed to notice the submissions advanced by learnedsenior counsel appearing for Telangana power utilities. It is submittedthat under the judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2018 in Civil AppealNo.11435/2018, One-Man Committee had to confine the allocation to1157 employees only. In the Final Report dated 26.12.2019, out of 1157Gemployees, 655 were allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities and502 to Telangana State power utilities and after allocation, no furthersteps were required to be taken by One-Man Committee regardingfurther allocation. The One-Man Committee has exceeded the mandateof this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020 and substantially expanded theexercise of allocation of employees by giving completely go-bye to FinalH

Report dated 26.12.2019 and modalities finalised. The ratio of 3552:2550as given in the Concluding Report with regard to employees of AndhraPradesh power utilities and Telangana power utilities respectively is notprescribed by Government Order Nos. 24, 25 and 26 except in respectof headquarter posts. The number of total employees, i.e., 6102 asmentioned in the Concluding Report is erroneous. The figure of 6102employees does not take into account the employees working in twodistribution companies of Telangana, i.e., TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL.The Telangana State power utilities were already allocated 502 out of1157+242+71 employees as per Supplementary Report and addition offurther 584 employees as per the Concluding Report is excessive anduncalled for. The Concluding Report of the One-Man Committee hasgiven a complete go-bye to the modalities, which were formulated andapproved by this Court. One-Man Committee erred in accepting thestand of Andhra Pradesh power utilities that allocation of 655 employeesproposed by Telangana State power utilities should be on a condition ofreciprocity by the Telangana State utilities in accepting equal number of655 employees from Andhra Pradesh power utilities. Reciprocity wasnot prescribed in the modalities given by One-Man Committee asapproved by this Court. One-Man Committee erred in deviating frommodalities by issuing the Concluding Report and allocation of employeesas per principle of “financial neutrality” and “balancing of employees”.The direction given in the Supplementary Report was to identify 584employees 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, whichwas contrary to the Supplementary Report itself. Even the ConcludingReport is not final and was an open-ended report. As per the ConcludingReport, direction was given to Sub-Committee Member of the AndhraPradesh to further delete the names as per direction Nos. I, II and IIIand in fact after the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 Sub-CommitteeMember from Andhra Pradesh has released another list on 26.06.2020by deleting 119 employees from the list of 655 employees allocated toAndhra Pradesh and deleted 50 employees out of 484 list of employeesand further added 10 more employees to be allocated to Telangana Stateon spouse ground. The report dated 20.06.2020, thus, was not even afinal report and finality of the allocation was permitted to be unsettled byA.P. power utilities. The allocation exercise as per the Concluding Report A

BC

DEF

GH

Adated 20.06.2020 is arbitrary being contrary to the orders of this Courtand also contrary to the modalities framed by One-Man Committee andthe earlier reports, i.e., Final Report dated 26.12.2019 and SupplementaryReport dated 11.03.2020. It is further submitted by learned senior counselthat the Telangana State is both geographically as well as on populationbasis smaller State as compared to residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.BAgainst allocation of 655 employees to the Andhra Pradesh power utilities,from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities502+242+71+584 = 1399 employees have been allocated. Learned seniorcounsel for the applicants referring to figures as given in M.A. No.1286/2020 in paragraph (e) and (f) submits that post allocation, totalCnumber of employees in Telangana State power utilities are 5115 whereasin Andhra Pradesh power utilities was only 3552.

18. Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearingfor Andhra Pradesh power utilities refuting the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the applicants contends that the Concluding Report submittedDby One-Man Committee is not beyond the remit of this Court. One-ManCommittee has not gone beyond the orders of this Court. One-ManCommittee has prepared a Supplementary Report as well as ConcludingReport taking into consideration all modalities finalised by the One-ManCommittee. It is submitted that Government Order Nos. 24, 25 and 26dated 29.05.2014 were not subject matter of challenge either before theEHigh Court or this Court and all the parties had agreed to abide by thesaid Government Orders. In terms of Government Orders, ratio ofemployees of Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh is 2550:3552. Thefigures 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 beenFplaced before the One-Man Committee. The applicants are endeavouringto re-open all issues of allocation by means of this M.A. whereas underthe orders of this Court dated 28.11.2018, the report of One-ManCommittee was binding on both the power utilities. The Telangana Statepower utilities by one or other means right from very beginning have been harping only on principle of nativity, which was specificallyGdisapproved by the High Court. The submission of the applicant that theallocation exercise was to confine only to 1157 employees is not correct.Although, it is true that before the High Court, the challenge was to theunilaterally relieved 1157 by Telangana State power utilities and this Courtin its judgment dated 28.11.2018 has also observed that One-ManHCommittee would determine the modalities for distributing the personnel,

i.e., the aforesaid 1157 employees. This Court has clarified that in casedispute persists in respect of other employees of these Power UtilityCompanies 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 notconfined to 1157 employees only. In view of the dispute submitted beforethe One-Man Committee, the allocation of all allocated employees wasopen for consideration. Shri Kaul submits that population ratio has to bebasis of allocation. He has referred to Section 2(h) and Section 53 of theAndhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. It is further submitted thatthree Government Order Nos.24, 25 and 26 dated 29.05.2014 referredto population ratio, hence, the said ratio could not have been ignoredwhile allocating. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh power utilitieshad not raised any objection with regard to modalities formulated by theOne-Man Committee. The entire dispute arose out of unilaterally relievingof 1157 employees by Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradeshpower utilities on the basis of nativity, which action was struck down bythe High Court and confirmed by this Court. It is submitted that whilesubmitting Final Report dated 26.12.2019, One-Man Committee had onlyapproved list of 655 employees submitted by Telangana State powerutilities to be allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities but no reciprocalallocation from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana power utilitieswas undertaken. At that stage, Andhra Pradesh power utilities had comebefore this Court by filing M.A. and this Court on 24.01.2020 permittedthe parties to go back to the One-Man Committee to represent forcorrection of errors. Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 was givento correct the balance. The Sub-Committee Members of Andhra Pradeshwas entrusted to select 584 names to be allocated to Telangana Statepower utilities, since Telangana State Power Utilities has already agreedto accept 71 cases relating to spouse and medical grounds. Thus, totalallocation contemplated from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to TelanganaState power utilities was 655, i.e., 71+584. It is submitted that the caseof the applicant that out of 1157 employees 502 were allocated toTelangana State power utilities and 655 to Andhra Pradesh power utilitiesis without any basis. When a list of 1157 employees unilaterally relievedby 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 powerutilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The figure of 502 is A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunnecessary being claimed and pressed by applicants to confuse theissue. Further, 242 employees were also not covered by any part ofallocation by One-Man Committee. 242 is number where employeesworking in Andhra Pradesh power utilities, who got them self-relievedand joined Telangana State power utilities on their own. Telangana Statepower utilities had accepted joining of 242 self-relieved employees, it isBtheir burden to shoulder. The allocation, which has been finalised byOne-Man Committee is those of 655 from Telangana State power utilitiesto Andhra Pradesh power utilities and 655 from Andhra Pradesh powerutilities to Telangana State power utilities. Members of Sub-Committeeof Andhra Pradesh power utilities were rightly asked to submit a list ofC584 members, which are proposed to be allocated to Telangana Statepower 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 dealtwith by One-Man Committee in the Final Report. Selection of 584 fromAndhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities werenot to be based on only nativity whereas list of 2165, which was placedDbefore One-Man Committee was the list of those employees, who hadindicated their hometown as territory of Telangana State. Modality (V),which requires the consideration of option of employees for adjustingthem in the State in which their home district falls as far as possible.There was no mandate in the modalities or under law to allocateEemployees to his/their home district. All modalities including the optionand seniority were to be considered while finalising the allocation. Thelist of 655 employees was earlier submitted by Telangana State powerutilities and approved by One-Man Committee in Final Report dated26.12.2019. The Andhra Pradesh power utilities were also entitled toselect 655 to be sent to Telangana State power utilities. After theFConcluding Report dated 20.06.2020, further deletion and addition fromthe 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 endsof justice to adjust the equities for which no exception can be taken byGthe applicants. In the Supplementary Report in paragraph 21, it wasalready noticed that parties have agreed that all retired employeesbetween years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility in each State need notbe displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them. The directionNo.I was in accord to the aforesaid agreement between the parties withonly modification that the aforesaid direction has been extended toH

employees, who are going to retire on 31.12.2020. The above directionprotects the financial interest of both the States as well as the employees.One-Man Committee, which has been empowered to take a final decisionregarding allocation was fully entitled to seek any further direction lookingto the fact that the allocation process has taken considerable time andsome further adjustments were required to be made by the One-ManCommittee.

19. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for theTelangana Electricity Engineers Association submits that One-ManCommittee has travelled outside the limits of both the Concluding Reportand Supplementary Report and are not correct. It is submitted thatallocation in Telangana State power utilities being excessive the prospectof promotion of Engineers working in Telangana are affected. TheTelangana State power utilities have been over burdened with a largenumber of employees, which is contrary to the spirit of Andhra PradeshReorganisation Act, 2014 and prospect from the employees hailing fromthe Telangana is affected.

20. Shri Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing forAPSPDCL relieved employees contends that the distribution businessof Anantapur and Kurnool Districts of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh CentralPower Distribution Company Ltd. was merged with Andhra PradeshSouthern Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. by G.O. No.24 dated29.05.2014 and in fact those employees were not subject to any furtherallocation. He submits that the names of the applicants were not includedin the Final Report dated 26.12.2019 but now it has come in theSupplementary Report and the Concluding Report, which deserves tobe set aside.

21. Shri P.V. Surendranath, learned senior counsel submits thatOne-Man Committee has not taken into consideration the judgment ofthis Court in Telangana Judges Association Vs. Union of India,(2018) SCC Online SC 1729, which was referred to by this Court inits judgment dated 28.11.2018 deciding the Civil Appeal No.11435/2018.He further submits that in Supplementary Report modalities earlierfinalised have been obliterated.

22. Shri Ravi Shankar Jindhiyala, learned counsel appearing inM.A. Diary No. 13844 of 2020 submits that the applicants are seniormost employees and they were relieved from Telangana State power A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Autilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities, they are not being paid salaryciting direction No. I of Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020.

23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and have perused the records.

24. Before we enter into the submissions of learned counsel forBthe parties, it is necessary to consider the scope of these miscellaneousapplications qua the One-Man Committee’s Report. In order dated28.11.2018 passed by this Court appointing One Man’s Committee, thisCourt made clear that decision of the One-Man Committee shall be finaland binding on the all the parties including Power Utility Companies ofCthe two States. relevant part of the order is as follows:- “We make it clear that the decision of the one manCommittee head by Justice Dharmadhikari shall be final and bindingon all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the twoStates as well as the employees and shall be executed by all theDparties as an order of this Court.”25. While disposing of the appeal, this Court, however, madefollowing observations:- “However, in case, any clarification or further direction is requiredby any of the parties they are entitled to approach this Court byEfiling interlocutory application in these proceedings.”

26. The liberty granted to parties to seek clarification or furtherdirection was with object to complete the process of distributing thepersonnel between two States. There was no right of appeal given toany of the parties or any officer or employee against the report of One-FMan Committee. The power utilities of both the States having not beenable to arrive at any consensus to finally determine the modalities todistribute the personnel between two States, this Court constituted One-Man Committee to decide the dispute. When this Court clearly directedas noted above that decision of One-Man Committee shall be final andbinding on all the parties including power utility companies as well as theGemployees, the decision of the One-Man Committee has to be given dueweight and cannot be lightly interfered with. The scope of thesemiscellaneous applications is, thus, very limited and by these miscellaneousapplications, the power utilities of both the States cannot be allowed toseek re-examination of various issues, which were raised before One-HMan Committee.

27. As noted above, it is Section 82 of the Andhra PradeshReorganisation Act, 2014, which deals with employees of public sectorundertaking. The key words in Section 82 are “the corporate bodyconcerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnelbetween the two successor States”. The High Court in its impugnedjudgment dated 02.02.2018 while answering point No.2 framed by theHigh Court had observed in paragraph 51:-

“51. For the foregoing reasons, we hold point No.1 in the negativeand against the Telangana State Government and the TelanganaState power utilities. Under point No.2, we hold that the phrase“corporate body concerned” shall be read as “corporate bodiesconcerned” and the words “between the two successor States”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 themodalities for distributing the personnel between two successorcorporations/companies. It was due to failure of power utilities of boththe States to arrive at a consensus and after unilateral decision of powerutilities of Telangana to relieve 1157 employees from Telangana to AndhraPradesh merely on the ground of nativity, the litigation started in theHigh Court by filing various writ petitions. The reference of threeGovernment Orders, which were issued by erstwhile State of AndhraPradesh on 29.05.2014, which has been referred to and relied by One-Man Committee also need to be noted. Government Order No. 24 dated29.05.2014 was issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, whichGovernment Order states:- “ENERGY (CC) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No. 24.Dated: 29-05-2014

As the two districts of Ananthapur and Kurnool fall withinthe residual state of AP, in accordance with Schedule XII of AndhraPradesh Reorganization Act 2014, it is necessary to reassign thedistribution business of these two districts to the presentAPSPDCL from APCPDCL. The assets and liabilities shall bereassigned to APSPDCL as per the Section 53 of the Act. Tofacilitate the reassignment of the distribution business of the twodistricts of Ananthapur and Kurnool to APSPDCL as per the Act,following guidelines are issued.

A

B

D

E

F

G

H

AI.Effective Date/Appointed Date: The Effective/Appointeddate for transfer of the business is 02.06.2014.

II. Employees: All the employees working in Kurnool andAnanthapur circles on the appointed day will continue to workin the same places till the final allotment of employees to theBrespective DISCOMS is completed in accordance withguidelines to be issued by government separately in this regard.Their salaries will be paid by APCPDCL and reimbursed byAPSPDCL on monthly basis till the final allotment iscompleted. Provisional allocation of staff will be done as perState Government guidelines.”C

29. Another Government Order being G.O. No.25 dated 29.05.2014was issued for allocation of AP GENCO for Telangana, the posts andstaff to be transferred to the newly created Telangana GENCO was tobe in accordance with the Guidelines contained therein. All sanctionedposts for Telangana Region Projects located in Telangana State shallDstand transferred to Telangana GENCO w.e.f. effective date. Paragraph6 of the Government Order dealt with allocation of sanctioned technicalposts at Head Quarters and allocation of sanctioned common servicesposts at Head Quarters. Another Government Order No.26 dated29.05.2014 was issued containing Guidelines on separate creation ofETRANSCO for Telangana State. In paragraph 5 of the GovernmentOrder, which deals with transfer of posts to TG TRANSCO, followingwas stated:-

“5. Transfer of posts to TG TRANSCO: All the posts relatedto District, Field and Zonal offices including Central TrainingFInstitute at Hyderabad located in Telangana State shall standtransferred to TG TRANSCO with effect from Effective date.Posts at AP TRANSCO Head Quarter shall be divided betweentwo Transcos based on population ratio of respective state. Basedon this principle, head quarter posts transferred to TG TRANSCOis listed in Annexure- C.”G

30. The above three Government Orders, which were issued withregard to these power distribution companies, generation and transmissionwere relevant for the subject. There was no challenge to the aforesaidGovernment Orders either before the High Court or before this Court.In paragraph 39 of the judgment of the High Court, following wasHobserved by the High Court:- GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

“39. A doubt would arise as to when the State Government hasno power for distribution of the personnel between the twosuccessor bodies, whether it has the power to distribute the posts.Neither of the successor States nor the successor power utilitieshave challenged the validity of these G.Os., allocating the postsamong the successor power utilities. Even during the hearing,neither of the two Advocates General has either taken the standthat there was no allocation of the posts, nor advanced anysubmission against such allocation. Therefore, there could be noimpediment for the allocation of the employees based on theallocation of the posts made in the aforementioned G.Os. In thealternative, if the joint committee of the power utilities feel thatamendments or adjustments to the allocation of posts made underthe aforementioned three GOs are necessary, they shall be freeto do so based on the consensus.”

31. As noted above, the judgment of the High Court was upheldby this Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2018. Now, we need to noticethe modalities, which were finalised by One-Man Committee. on17.04.2019, final modalities to the following effect were finalised byOne-Man Committee:- “(I) All Identifiable allocable employees.

I. All State Cadre Employees of the rank of Assistant Engineerand equivalent post and above.

II. All posts at the Head Quarters of APEGENCO, APTRANSCOand D!SCOMs falling within the territory of the two States areallocable.

(II) All identified allocable employees in Power utilities of unitedAndhra Pradesh (including 1157 unilaterally relieved by Telangana+ 229 unilaterally allowed to join by Telangana) will be consideredfor final allocation to the new States of Andhra Pradesh andTelangana on “as is where is basis” on the appointed day on2.6.2014 in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of theAct of 2014.

(III) The allocation of employees to the two new States would bePower Utility-wise (i.e GENCO, TRANSCO and DISCOMs) inproportion to the posts sanctioned in each Power Utility and inaccordance with G.O.Ms No. 24 for DISCOMs and G.OMs No.25

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor GENCO and G.O.Ms No.26 for TRANSCO issued by Energy(CC Department) of Govcrn1ncnt of Andhra Pradesh under section53 of the Act of 2014.

(IV) The allocable employees will have liberty to give options inthe prescribed form Annexed to the present modalities. However,Bthe employees who have already exercised options, will not beallowed again to sub1nit options for a different place or location inany of the two States. The opportunity of submitting option in theprescribed form would be available only to such employees whohave not submitted their options earlier.

C(V) The allocable employees would, as far as possible, afterconsideration of their options be adjusted in the State in whichtheir Home District falls as per the information contained in theirservice records and obtained from them through the informationavailable and provided by them in their written representations.

D(VI) The Provisional Allocation list after preparation will bedisplayed on the Notice Board of the Head Quarters of eachPower Utility and also put on the website and other electronicsites for information of the employees. The employees may takeup their written representations within three weeks from the dateof the optics for proposed allocation.E

(VII) Representations of the employees in respect of proposedallocation shall be duly considered by Two Member Sub Committeecomprising One Member each of the Power Utilities within thearea of AP and TS. After considering the representations of theemployees by the Sub Committee, the proposed Allocation ListFwill be submitted to the One Man Committee.

(VIII) The employees of the category of SCs and STs shall as faras possible, be allotted to the appropriate ·company in the State inwhich the concerned SC or ST employee is notified as such inaccordance with the Constitutional Provisions.

G

(IX) Case of alleviation of extreme personal hardship of StateGovernment employees will be exceptions to the principle. It wouldbe open to Committee to consider the representation or requestof allocation on case to case basis.

(X) Widowed Female employees legally separated and divorcedHwomen employees will be considered for allocation to the State, TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWERGENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

basing on their request for allotment. It would be open to thecommittee to consider the representation or request of allocationon case to case basis.

(XI) Handicapped persons of more than 60% disability may beallocated on the basis of option, subject to the procedure prescribedby the State Government. It would be open to the con11nittee toconsider the representations or request of allocation on case tocase basis.

(XII) An employee of whose spouse or child is known to be facingserious medical hardship, like in cases of cancer, open heart bypass,and kidney transplant/kidney failure dependent on dialysis ormentally challenged, shall be considered for allotment on specialgrounds on the basis of request of allotment, subject to strict proofof verification as per the procedure prescribed by the StateGovernment. It would be open to the committee to consider therepresentation or request of allocation on case to case basis.

(XIII) In spouse cases, where the employee of the Spouse workingin State Government, Central Government, State Governmentinstitutions, Local Bodies, the following guidelines may be adopted.It would be open to the Committee to consider the representationor request of allocation on case to case basis.

(I)Allocation of both spouses may be considered for the stateto which both of them are native.

(II)In case where one of them is working in State PowerUtilities and other is working 1n PSU/DefenceOrganizations/ Railways/ Banking and Insurance Sectors/Central Government/ State Government, the said cases maybe considered on case to case basis.

(III)Spouses who belong to different States (AP /TS) may beallocated together as per their request to one State.

(XIV) All the employees who have retired/ died after the AppointedDay and the pensioners shall be allotted as per the aboveformulated modalities.”

32. The modality No.(III) as above provides that the allocation ofemployees to the two new States would be Power Utility-wise inproportion to the posts sanctioned in each Power Utility and in accordance A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awith G.O.Ms Nos. 24, 25 and 26. The modality No.(IV) provided for aliberty to allocable employees to give options in the prescribed form.Modality NO.(II) also contemplate that all identified allocable employeesin Power utilities of united Andhra Pradesh will be considered for finalallocation to the new States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on “as iswhere is basis” on the appointed day on 2.6.2014. The One-ManBCommittee had also constituted a Sub-Committee consisting of onerepresentative of power utilities of Andhra Pradesh and one representativeof power utilities of Telangana to assist One-Man Committee in finalisingthe distribution. After framing of the modalities, One-Man Committeeproceeded with the task. The member of Sub-Committee of TelanganaCutilities had submitted a list of 655 employees out of 1157 earlierunilaterally relieved by Telangana power utilities to be allocated to AndhraPradesh utilities. One-Man Committee submitted a Final Report dated26.12.2019 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 wasDapproved to be allocated to different power utilities of Andhra Pradesh.The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. filed applicationbeing M.A. No.60 of 2020 in this Court seeking certain direction withregard to Final Report dated 26.12.2019, copy of M.A. No.60 of 2020has been brought on record as Annexure R-10 to the common counterEaffidavit filed on behalf of respondent. One of the issues raised in theapplication was that although One-Man committee has approved the listof 655 employees allocating them to Andhra Pradesh power utilities butno allocation was made in respect of 3517 allocable employees workingon order to serve basis in Andhra Pradesh power utilities. In paragraph4c, d and e following has been pleaded:-F

“c. That the names of the 3517 state cadre allocable employeesworking in AP Power utilities are not found any mention in thefinal report dated 26-12-2019.

d. Moreover, an additional 655 employees were unlawfully thrustGupon the AP power utilities over and above the allocable postsavailable with AP power utilities.

e. That because of the above omission, there is an inward transferof additional 655 employees from Telangana to AP over and abovethe 3517 employees, who are already working on order to serveHbasis and there is no outward transfer of any employees from AP

to Telangana. the obvious result is that instead of the allocation ofall 6102 allocable employees in percentages between the two Statesas given in the GO Ms. 24, 25 and 26, the ratio has now skewedmore towards AP because of the proposed inward transfer. Inother words, AP is being forced to absorb in excess of the allocableposts mandated by the Reorganisation Act as well as the bindingG.O.s.”

33. M.A. No. 60 of 2020 was disposed of by this Court by orderdated 24.01.2020 where this Court made following observations:-

“This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the workof allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, themodalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all, towhich, there is no dissension between the parties. There being nodispute regarding modalities, in event, there is some error ormistake in the working of the modalities that can be pointed out tothe same committee by means of a representation and we hopeand trust that the committee shall look into the said grievance andcorrect the error, if any. We also make it clear that if therepresentation is submitted by the applicant, copy of the sameshall be given to the power utilities of both the Sates, who mayalso have liberty to submit a response to those representation,which may be considered by the one man committee. Therepresentation be submitted within two weeks and response theretobe also submitted within two weeks thereafter.”

34. After the order dated 24.01.2020, One-Man Committee heardthe Andhra Pradesh power utilities, which made a representation to One-Man Committee to rectify the list. A reply was also submitted by TelanganaState power utilities. On 23.02.2020, the One-Man Committee held ameeting for consideration of the representation. In pursuance of thedeliberations, T.S. power utilities submitted their proposals foraccommodating 71 employees on spouse and medical grounds. on11.03.2020, One-Man Committee issued a Supplementary Report. Inthe Supplementary Report, One–Man Committee noted that 655employees, who were allocated from T.S. power utilities to A.P. powerutilities have already been relieved. One-Man Committee has furtherobserved that to complete the allocation process comprehensively byincluding all allocable employees alongwith 1157 ex-parte relieved, aseparate exercise has been undertaken. One-Man Committee noted that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awith regard to 71 employees from A.P. power utilities to Telangana Statepower utilities both the parties have agreed and the list of 71 employeeswas annexed alongwith the Report. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 27 of theSupplementary Report, which are relevant, are to the following effect:- “21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retired employeesBbetween years 2014 to 2020 in each Power Utility in each Stateneed not be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them.

22. On the basis of the Allocation Lists proposed by AP PowerUtilities, the present Committee has identified and listed in Annexedlists with the present Supplementary Report, total 2165 employeeswhich include 1157 earlier relieved and were working on the sideof Telangana on the basis of the stay orders of the High Courtand Hon’ble Supreme Court. Those employees continued to servein TS Companies on the basis of the order of the Court. Out ofabove mentioned 1157 the employees, numbering 655 have beenrelieved by TS for AP Companies who are awaiting joining, postingand payments of their salaries.

C

D

23. The present Committee in the lists annexed to the presentSupplementary Report has identified total 2165 employees assuitable for allocation to TS Companies on the basis of theModalities agreed by the parties and approved by Supreme Court.

E

The breakup of employees presently working in APCompanies which are identified as suitable for allocation to TSCompanies are as under:- F

27. The present Committee is entrusting the work to the memberof the Sub-Committee representing AP side, of identification of584 employees from the lists Annexed to the Supplementary Reportof the Committee for Allocating them from AP Power Utilities toTS Power Utilities. It needs mention that the abovementioned584 employees should be other than 655 employees out of earlierrelieved 1157 and who are awaiting orders of joining, posting andpayment of salary from Andhra Pradesh Side.”

G

H

35. The One-Man Committee further issued certain clarificationon 13.03.2020 on receipt of the letter dated 12.03.2020 on behalf ofTelangana State power utilities. After the issue of Supplementary Report,Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh power utilities submitted aletter dated 12.03.2020 submitting a list of 584 persons identified as perSupplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 to be allocated to Telanganapower utilities. Telangana power utilities has raised objections regardinglist of 584 employees and also filed a Miscellaneous Application No.920of 2020. This Court disposed of the M.A. No.920 of 2020 with theobservation that objection with regard to 584 employees raised byTelangana power utilities are to be considered by One-Man Committee.Various employees sent different representations to power utilities aswell as to the One-Man Committee. One-Man Committee issued adirection dated 11.05.2020 directing both the sides to considerrepresentations received from the employees effectively and send theirrevised proposed allocations. The Sub-Committee Member of AndhraPradesh submitted a letter dated 26.05.2020 revising the list of 584persons to be allocated to Telangana State power utilities. The listsubmitted by letter dated 26.05.2020 was objected by Telangana powerutilities by their letter dated 10.06.2020. After considering the list submittedby Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh and the objection ofTelangana, Concluding Report has been submitted by One-ManCommittee dated 20.06.2020.

36. In M.A. No. 1286 of 2020, learned counsel for the applicantsin paragraphs E and F has given certain figures regarding allocation asper Report dated 26.12.2019 and as per Report dated 20.06.2020.Applicants have also disputed the number of allocable employees asclaimed by Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The number of allocableemployees as claimed on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh power utilities,i.e., 6102 has been questioned in the application. It is submitted thatallocable employees were not 6102 but were much more. It has beenclaimed that as per Concluding Report, Telangana State power utilitieshave now been allocated 5115 employees and Andhra Pradesh powerutilities have been allocated 3552 employees, thus, as per claim of theapplicants by final Concluding Report actually 8667 employees havebeen allocated. The above figures have been stoutly refuted by learnedcounsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh power utilities submitting thatfigures, which are now sought to be claimed in the application by applicantwas never placed before the One-Man Committee and the figures given AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aby the applicants are all imaginary and needs no consideration. It issubmitted by the respondent that endeavour of the applicants is to confusethe issue by giving all wrong figures.

37. To satisfy ourselves with regard to figures of allocableemployees, which were placed before the One-Man Committee, weBhave looked into the claim of respective parties as was placed beforethe One-Man Committee. In letter dated 26.05.2020, Annexure R-19 tothe common counter affidavit, details relating to allocable employees asper three Government Orders were mentioned as 6102. In paragraphs 9and 18, following has been stated:-

C“9. The stated stand of the AP utilities has been as mentioned inthe above order dated 01.05.2020 passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt of India is that ratios as per GOs be maintained, i.e., out of6102 “allocable” employees. 3552 is the threshold limit of AndhraPradesh Utilities and 2550 is threshold limit of Telangana PowerUtilities. The said numbers are sacrosanct and cannot be altered.DThe committee was constituted and empowered to considerallocation of all allocable employees and was not limited to 1157employees as was and continued to be contended by TelanganaUtilities. Further the Telangana Utilities continue to seek allocationof “Nativity” principle. Both the stands of the Telangana UtilitiesEhave been rejected which is the essence of AP ReorganizationAct, 2014 read with Modalities finalized by the Hon’ble One ManCommittee. Secondly the allocation will be strictly in accordancewith the GOs and all other modalities to be applied on case tocase basis; as far as possible. It is most humbly submitted that,while identifying the 655 that were allotted to AP utilities, theFTelangana Utilities have not applied any scientific mechanism orthe modalities but is based primarily on the “Nativity/Home district”Principle: whereas identification of 584 employees by A.P. Utilitiesis based on objective criteria contained in the working modalities,aided by the DoPT guidelines and is in accordance with theGdirections of the courts in this regard. The identification ofpersonnel on cadre basis has been carried out such that the 655employees are balanced with (584+71) so that financial neutralityis maintained.

18. That, at very outset it is submitted that TS Power Utilities areHagain seeking to reopen the whole allocation. There is an all-out TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWERGENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

attempt to confuse the numbers and thus for clarity, the numbersare explained hereunder.

A

18.1 Total Number of Allocable Employees is 6102as on02.06.2014.

18.2 Ratios as laid down by the provisions of the APBReorganization Act and the binding GOs as per the modalitiesis Andhra Pradesh power utilities: Telangana powerutilities = 3552:2550.

18.3 As on 02.06.2014 employees working on order to servewith Andhra Pradesh utilities are 3552 and similarlyCemployees working on order to serve with TelanganaUtilities are 2550.

18.4 Final Report dated 26.12.2019 allocated 3552 (alreadyworking on order to serve) plus additional 655 makingtotal of 4207to AP utilities and reduced the numberof employees in Telangana utilities to 1895, thus,Dskewing the balance and disrupting the ratios underthe GOs.

18.5 Citing the mismatch of ratios i.e., 3552:2550for whichAP utilities had approached Hon’ble Supreme Courtvide their clarification petition vide MA Nos. 60, 61and 62. Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated theerrors in the Allocation and directed the AP PowerUtilities to approach this Hon’ble Committee forrectification of errors and application of Modalitiesstrictly.

E

F

18.6 Thus the Hon’ble one man committee held proceedings atDelhi and by accepting the doctrine of ‘financial neutrality’vide Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 the aboveerrors in ratios which had crept in were corrected and curedand thus withsame ratio as stipulated in GOs 3552:2550has been restored and 655 allotted to AP are balancedby corresponding 655 (584 + 71) allotted to TS.”

G

38. The claim as made by Sub-Committee Member of the AndhraPradesh power utilities was objected by the applicants and they havefiled a detailed letter dated 10.06.2020 which letter is part of M.A.

H

ANo.1270/2020 whereby replying paragraph 9, following has been statedin paragraph 9.1:- “9.1. Further, the order dated 1-5-2020 of the Hon.ble SupremeCourt does not refer to the Government orders or that out of6102 allocable employees, 3552 is the threshold limit of AP PowerBUtilities and 2550 is threshold limit of TS Power Utilities. Suchan averment is misleading. In this regard it is submitted that, thefigures as given by the Member, AP in Para-9 is incorrect even asper the list furnished by the AP Power Utilities to the Hon’bleOMC on 23-02-2020. According to their own [A.P Power Utilities]Final list of employees submitted to your Lordship on 23-02-2020Cthe total allocable employees are 6198 and not 6102 employeesas has been stated now. In the list of 6198 employees, as wasfurnished by AP Power utilities, 2225 employees were foundallocable to TS Power Utilities and 3973 employees to AP PowerUtilities. And out of the 2225 employees found allocable to TSDPower Utilities; the Hon’ble OMC had identified 2165 employeessuitable for allocation to TS Power Utilities in Para-23 of theSupplementary Report dtd: 11-03-2020. Therefore, the figures asspecified now in Para-9 of the letter dtd:26-05-2020 is incorrectand has been done without any basis and only with a view tocreate confusion and complicate the issue. The population ratioEhas no relevancy for allocation of the employees in terms of Section82 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014.”

39. The claim made in paragraph 18 of the letter dated 26.05.2020was further objected in paragraph 15 of the letter dated 10.06.2020.The Telangana State power utilities have repeated the same averments,Fwhich have been noted in paragraph 9.1 as above. From the materialsplaced by the applicants before the One-Man Committee in response tothe claim of 6102 employees allocable on 02.06.2014, no figure of theirown has been submitted by the applicants rather they only say thatAndhra Pradesh power utilities itself have given a figure of 6198 inGplace of 6102. When no materials have been placed before the One-Man Committee with regard to number of allocable employees on02.06.2014, it is not open for the applicants to give new figures beforethis Court. This Court cannot permit the parties to reopen the number ofallocable employees as on 02.01.2020 to anything contrary, which wasnot placed before the One-Man Committee. We, thus, are of the viewH

that figures, now, sought to be given in M.A. No.1286 of 2020 need tobe ignored. We, thus, do not find any error in the allocations made by theOne-Man Committee in its Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020.

40. We may further observe that the list of 655 employeessubmitted by Telangana State power utilities for allocation to AndhraPradesh power utilities has been approved by the One-Man Committeefor which there is no dispute. The One-Man Committee has undertakenexercise to identify the list of 655 employees from Andhra Pradesh powerutilities to be transferred to Telangana State power utilities. Theproceeding to balance the number of employees from Telangana Statepower utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities being 655, we fail tounderstand that how the applicants can raise the issue regarding numberof allocable employees to be considered by this Court in theseproceedings.

41. The submission which has been much pressed by the learnedcounsel for the applicants is that number of employees allocated toTelangana State power utilities is much more as compared to those whichhave been allocated from Telangana State power utilities to AndhraPradesh power utilities. The applicants have repeatedly in their applicationand their objection before the One-Man Committee have referred to502 out of 1157, 242 self-relieved employees and 71 spouse and medicalcases plus 584 which have been permitted to be identified by Memberof Andhra Pradesh Sub-Committee. The submission is that502+242+71+584 becomes 1399, hence 1399 have been allocated toTelangana State power utilities as against 655, which has been allocatedfrom Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities.We may need to look into the above submission on the basis of eachfigure claimed by the applicant.

42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to the applicantis balance from 1157 by reducing it by 655. The 502 figure as notedabove, 1157 is the number of persons, which were initially relieved byTelangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilitiesunilaterally which decision was set aside by the High Court and wasupheld by this Court. Out of 1157 only 655 have been allocated to AndhraPradesh power utilities, which was approved by Final Report dated26.12.2019 of the One-Man Committee. How allocation of 502 is claimedwhen they are the employees, who remained on Telangana State withoutthey being allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities apart from 655

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afrom Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Further employees workingin Telangana State were allowed to remain in Telangana State, hence,allocation from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655 andaddition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.

43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number of self-relievedBemployees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Admittedly, 242employees are, thus, who got themselves self-relieved from AndhraPradesh without there being any order or without there being any directionby anyone. These 242 employees were permitted joining by Telanganapower utilities by its own. These 242 employees having never beenallocated to nor being part of any allocation cannot be added in figure byCTelangana State. Now, we come to 71, which is agreed spouse andmedical ground cases by both the parties. 71 is part of 655, which is nowbeing identified by Andhra Pradesh to be allocated to Telangana State.By taking this no.71 in Supplementary Report permitting Andhra Pradeshto identify only 584, thus, it is only 584+71, i.e., 655 employees, whichDare 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 theapplicant that 1399 employees have been allocated to Telangana Stateas against 655 allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.

44. Now, another limb of attack of the applicants is on the selectionEof 584 employees, which have been approved by the Concluding Reportto be allocated to the Telangana State. It is submitted by applicants thatin Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the One-Man Committeehas itself stated that there are 2165 employees, who are suitable forallocation to Telangana State companies, which has also been noticed inparagraph 23 of the Supplementary Report. When the Andhra PradeshFSub-Committee Member vide letter dated 26.05.2020 has submitted therevised list of 584, immediately objection was raised by Telangana Statevide letter dated 10.06.2020 raising an objection that 584 does not formpart of 2165 from which only the A.P. Sub-Committee had to identify584. Initially by letter dated 12.03.2020, the Andhra Pradesh Sub-GCommittee Members have selected 584 employees, which was modifiedby letter dated 26.05.2020. The reason for modification in the list havebeen given in letter dated 26.05.2020 of Andhra Pradesh power utilities.It has been stated that after Supplementary Report and direction dated11.05.2020, representations were submitted by the employees with regardto rest of 584 and One-Man Committee issued a direction on 11.05.2020Hto the following effect:- “Due to outbreak of Corona virus and consequent lock downimposed in India, a formal personal meeting with the members ofthe Sub-Committee for finalizing the process of allocation doesnot seem possible in near future. The dispute now seems to havenarrowed down to 584 employees allocation by AP to TS side.Both sides are directed to consider the representations receivedfrom the employees collectively and individually and send theirrevised proposed allocation. Both sides should exchange theirrevised allocation Lists limited to 584 employees of AP whopresently stand allocated to TS. The members of the Sub-Committee are directed to send their proposed revised lists latestby 1[st] June, 2020. As and when normalcy is restored in the country,if necessary, a formal personal meeting date will be communicatedto the parties well in advance”.

45. Further in paragraph 13, following has been stated:- “13. That the substitution which takes place in the annexed revisedlists is in terms of directions dated 11.05.2020 issued by this Hon’bleCommittee and in terms of orders passed by Hon’ble SupremeCourt. The majority of representations were of the nature ofSpecial Cases including spouse cases, medical cases, physicallyhandicapped cases etc. Their grievances are addressed and onhumanitarian grounds and substitutions have been affected strictlyas per modalities. No revised options were considered in thisexercise.”

46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165 was consideredby the One-Man Committee, which is reflected from the ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020. The above objection has been duly consideredand answered by the One-Man Committee in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and28 of the Concluding Report, which is to the following effect:- “25. The second submission on behalf of TS is that with theSupplementary Report, this Committee had Identified total 2165employees in the list given to AP Sub Committee member forproposing allocation from that list. It is urged on behalf of TS, thatallocation list proposed by AP is not out of 2165 listed employeeswith the Supplementary Report of this Committee.

26. It is true, as urged on behalf of TS, that with the SupplementaryReport, this Committee had identified 2165 employees bused on AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Amodality Nos. 5 which requires consideration of every employeefor his home district and his adjustment as far as possible in theState in which his home district falls.

27. This Committee has to be open to correction. The Committeeis also of the view that modality No. V alone is not decisive andBmodalities no. I to IV are to be cumulatively taken intoconsideration and applied to make allocation in proportion to theavailable posts in each Company in the Two States. TS side hasaccepted that 114 employees from out of 584 employees proposedfor allocation by A.P to T.S are included in 2165 employeesidentified by this Committee in the lint annexed with SupplementaryCReport. The remaining 470 employees (falling outside 2165employees identified with the supplementary report) have beenproposed by A.P for T.S in the report of the Sub CommitteeMember. The justification shown is that it is to match the numberof employees with the available posts in various companies.

D28. In the above circumstances, mentioned above, this Committeefinds the Allocation Lists company-wise and post-wise proposedby 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 onlyEconsidered on the basis of modality No.V and modality No.V itself cannotbe the sole basis for allocation, hence other modalities were also takeninto consideration before finalising the list of 584. It is true that inSupplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the list of 2165 was indicatedas list of suitable persons who are eligible to be allocated to TelanganaFState, however, the selection made of 584 by applying modalities No. Ito V by the Andhra Pradesh Member Sub-Committee has found approvaland even if all members of 584 does not form part of 2165, no exceptioncan be taken to such allocation, which find approval by One-Mancommittee. We may further notice that insofar as the list of allocation of655 employees is concerned, which was submitted by Telangana StateGpower utilities, was approved by the One-Man Committee. The task toselect 584 was rightly entrusted by One-Man Committee to AndhraPradesh Sub-Committee Member since those 584 has to go to TelanganaState from Andhra Pradesh and those 584, who are working in theterritories of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh utilities were the bestHsuited to select 584 by applying all the modalities. Thus, the objection raised by the applicants on selection of 584 having not been accepted bythe One-Man Committee, we see no reason to take any different view.

48. Now, one more objection of the applicants, which needs to benoticed is the objection that even the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020is not final report and Sub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh hasbeen authorised to modify the list. Applicants have referred to directionNos. I, II and III of the Concluding Report, which is to the followingeffect:-

I.In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21 of theSupplementary Report of this Committee regarding retiredemployees on both sides, it is further directed, that in both theStates, employees who have attained or will be attaining 58Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocationprocess and their names in the Allocation Lists will beremoved.

II. In the allocation process of the present dimension andundertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for theCommittee to satisfy individual needs and comforts andservice prospects of every employee. The allocation processhas been finalized on laid down principles contained in themodalities and elbow room, wherever permissible, in themodalities has been given effect to. The committee howeverdirects the Sub Committee member of AP to re-examine anyleft out spouse and medical cases and every attempt shouldbe made to accommodate them in the state of their option.

III. All SC/ST employees cases be re-examined to accommodatethem as per modality VIII in the State where they are notifiedas SCs or STs so as not to affect their future service growth.

49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One-ManCommittee that those who have attained or will be attaining 58 Years ofage in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation process and theirnames in the Allocation Lists will be removed. In Supplementary Reportin paragraph 21, the One-Man Committee has stated:- “21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retired employeesbetween years 2014 to 2020 in each Power Utility in each Stateneed not be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A50. The above indicates that both the parties had agreed beforethe One-Man Committee that all retired employees between years 2014to 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 saidagreement, i.e., whoever shall be attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shallBbe kept out of allocation process. As per paragraph 21 of theSupplementary Report, those, who retire till then were already kept outof the allocation and the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be said tobe unreasonable. The allocation process being not yet finalised andawaiting finalisation for last several years, those who retire either inCTelangana State or Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decided not to bedisplaced only for the purpose of shouldering pensionary liability. Thedirection No.I is equitable.

51. The applicants further submit that after the Concluding Reportdated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020, Andhra Pradesh powerDutilities have struck 119 names from the incoming 655 list from theTelangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. Weare of the view that the said dropping is only consequential to the decisionof the One-Man Committee as reflected in paragraph 21 ofSupplementary Report and direction No.I of Concluding Report. TheAndhra Pradesh power utilities have also deleted 50 names from the listEof 584 employees outgoing from Andhra Pradesh power utilities toTelangana State power utilities, which was again in compliance of theOne-Man Committee’s decision. Any consequential action taken inpursuance of the Concluding Report cannot be said to be notcontemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannot be said to be anFopen ended report. The consequence of Concluding Report has to betaken to its logical ends. Further, 10 employees have been added bydirection Nos. II and the reasons have been given in the letter dated26.06.2020 for relieving them, which is again consequence of directionNos.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 sidesGincluding the representation of the employees and employees organisationssubmitted from time to time. The process which was initiated by submittingFinal Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by SupplementaryReport dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. TheOne-Man Committee being aware of all objections and having taken aHconscious decision to finalise the allocation between two States, we do not find any such error in the process which may warrant any clarificationor direction by this Court. We may further notice that the exerciseundertaken by the One-Man Committee is to allocate 655 from TelanganaState to Andhra Pradesh and same number from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana State. Apart from the above two allocations, other personnel,who were working in Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh were notdisturbed by allocation.

52. Learned counsel for the applicants have also taken exceptionto reciprocity of 655 number. We do not find that there is any error inreciprocity. The One-Man Committee took a decision that when 655employees are coming from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh, samenumber should go from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. In theConcluding Report, final list has been annexed, which is utility-wise andpersonnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We, thus, do not findany merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana Statepower utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which aredismissed.

53. We may also need to deal with the submission of ShriBalasubramanian, learned senior counsel in M.A. No.1287 of 2020. Themain submission of the learned counsel is that applicant being permanentemployee of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Companywith regard to which G.O. No.24 dated 29.05.2014 was issued, no furtherallocation was required. It is submitted that Ananthapur and Kurnooldistricts were transferred from Central Power Distribution CompanyLtd. to Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. He submits that whenallocation was made from Central Power Distribution Company toSouthern Power Distribution Company Ltd., allocation was completeand no further allocation was necessary. Paragraph 2 of the GovernmentOrder reads as follows:- “II. Employees: All the employees working in Kurnool andAnanthapur circles on the appointed day will continue to work inthe same places till the final allotment of employees to the respectiveDISCOMS is completed in accordance with guidelines to be issuedby government separately in this regard. Their salaries will bepaid by APCPDCL and reimbursed by APSPDCL on monthlybasis till the final allotment is completed. Provisional allocation ofstaff will be done as per State Government guidelines.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A54. The paragraph 2 above also contemplates final allotment.Before the High Court, one of the points framed for consideration wasto the following effect:- “4. Whether the division of employees of the TSSPDCL need notbe undertaken in view of clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule ?”

B55. The above points were categorically answered by the HighCourt in paragraph 59 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-

“59. The two Districts of Anantapur and Kurnool which werepart of APCPDCL before the creation of the State of Telanganahave been reassigned to the APSPDCL by clause C(8) of theCTwelfth Schedule. The submission of Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy thatin view of the said provision the need for division of the employeesbetween the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL is obviated and theapplication of Section 82 of the Act has got excluded, is withoutany merit. Under clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule, the divisionDwas confined only to the territorial areas of the said two Districts.Neither the assets and liabilities nor the employees have beendistributed by the said provision. Evidently, keeping this in mind,the A.P. State Government, before the appointed day, has merelydivided the cadre strength between the two DISCOMS byG.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29-5-2014 while clearly envisaging thereinEthe final allotment of the employees in future. It has also allowedthe employees working in the said two Districts to continue towork in the same places till the final allotment of the employees tothe respective DISCOMS is completed. It is therefore imperativethat the allocation between the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL isFmade in the same way as allocation of the employees betweenthe TRANSCOs and GENCOs of the two States is to be madeafter determining the modalities for such allocation.”

56. The above judgment of the High Court having been upheld bythis Court, the submission of learned counsel that no allocation processGought to be undertaken for applicants is without any merit. Further,submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that their nameswere not included in the Final List dated 26.12.2019 also does not in anymanner militate against and their names subsequently included forallocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State utilities. We havingupheld the allocation made by the One-Man Committee from AndhraH

Pradesh to Telangana State also, we find no merit in M.A. No.1287 of2020, 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 withdistribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution hasbeen finalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocationmade by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by anyemployee or officer is entertainable, we clarify that the One-ManCommittee having completed the process of allocation, the said allocationcannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility beforeany forum. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances asraised in different M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedingsand employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims beforeappropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposedof accordingly.

58. We having found no merit in the objections to One-ManCommittee’s Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 it is obligatory forpower utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out andimplement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.

Ankit Gyan

Miscellaneous Applications disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H