Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. versus D. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS. on 11 October 2022

[2022] 10 S.C.R. 1106

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 10 S.C.R.

A

Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS.

v.

D. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS.

(Contempt Petition (Civil) D.No.28852 of 2020)

B

OCTOBER 11, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Contempt of Court– Reorganization of the existing State ofAndhra Pradesh, State of Telangana was formed –Governmentorders were issued for Distribution, Generation Companies andCTransmission Corporation whereby their assets and liabilities wereapportioned between the two new States along with the postssanctioned for the employees working in those power sectorcorporations/companies – However, the Power Utilities of the twonewly formed States could not arrive at any consensus with regardDto modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel–Powerutilities of Telangana on the principle of nativity unilaterally relievedemployees whose service records mentioned them as resident of anypart of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and those whobelonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana werepermitted to join– Impugned action set aside by High Court – OrderEupheld by Supreme Court, however, noticing that two States werenot able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine themodalities for distributing the personnel between two States, OneMan Committee consisting of a former Judge of the Supreme Courtwas appointed – It was made clear that the decision of the OneFMan Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties – Presentcontempt petition filed by the 84 petitioners-erstwhile employees ofthe Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willfuldisobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passedby Supreme Court– Held: Once the names of the 84 petitionersfigured in the Final List prepared by the One Man Committee andGthe Final Report was accepted and approved by Supreme Courtand it was directed that both the States and their respective StatePower Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One ManCommittee and Final List prepared and communicated with the SupplementaryReport/Final Report, thereafter any deviation from the same wouldH

tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued bySupreme Court –The respective subsequent office orders issued bythe respective Telangana Power Utilities i.e.the TS Genco, TSTransco, the TSNPDCL and the TSSPDCL are contrary to thedirections issued by Supreme Court and the Supplementary Report/Final Report submitted by the One Man Committee which wouldtantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued bySupreme Court –Again, the Telangana State Power Utilities haveraised the same issues with respect to the Reciprocity and FinancialNeutrality, which were earlier raised before Supreme Court by filingrespective Miscellaneous Applications and same came to bedismissed by vide order dated 7.12.2020 – Thereafter, to raise thesame objections/issues again by the Telangana State Power Utilitieswould tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issuedby Supreme Court –It was purposefully directed to constitute theOne Man Committee consisting of a Former Judge of Supreme Courtto put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of theemployees and other disputes w.r.t the respective Power Utilities ofboth the States –Respective Telangana Power Utilities are guilty ofcontemptfor willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgmentand order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court–Additionalopportunity given to them to comply with the directions issued inthe final judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 and Concluding FinalReport submitted by the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 andto absorb all the respective petitioners in the respective TelanganaPower Utilities/establishment as per the list approved by the OneMan Committee –This would have a direct bearing on thepunishment/sentence to be imposed– Salary and other servicebenefits also to be paid to the petitioners from the day they arerelieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.

Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited v.Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited 2020 SCC Online SC 995 – referred to.

INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)D.No.28852 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2020 in MA No.1270of 2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AHuzefa Aziz Ahmadi, Colin Gonsalves, Deepak Nargolkar, Sr.Advs., Y. Raja Gopala Rao, K. Pramod Kumar, Rohan Sharma, SandeepSudhakar Deshmukh, Sravan Kumar, Olivia Bang, Hitendra Nath Rath,V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta,, Advs. for the Petitioners.

Ranjit Kumar, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., D. Abhinav Rao, Ms. SeemaBBengani, Rajat Nair, Apoorv Karup, Ms. Meera Patel, Manish Kashyap,B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.

Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Puneet Jain, NishantSharma, Deepak Joshi, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the Intervenor.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byC

M. R. SHAH, J.

1.0. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the 84petitioners – erstwhile employees of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilitiesalleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and orderDpassed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in CivilAppeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Miscellaneous Applications inthe case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. AndhraPradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited reported in 2020 SCCOnline SC 995 non-compliance alleged against the Telangana PowerUtilities (hereinafter referred to as the “TS Power Utilities”).

E

2.0. Shri Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate hasappeared on behalf of the applicants, Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri,learned Senior Advocates have appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors– Telangana Power Utilities and Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned SeniorAdvocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent- Andhra PradeshFPower Utilities.

3.0 Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe applicants has vehemently submitted that by detailed judgment andorders dated 20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020 this Hon’ble Court accepted thereport submitted by the One Man Committee of Hon’ble Mr. Justice DGM Dharmadhikari. It is submitted that by an order dated 7.12.2020 thisCourt had accepted the Concluding Report of the One Man Committeeand has directed the respondents to implement and absorb all theemployees allocated to TS Power Utilities. However, TS Power Utilitieshave arbitrarily and unilaterally left out the petitioners contrary to thejudgment dated 7.12.2020.H

3.1. It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi that a perusal of the judgmentand order dated 7.12.2020 passed by this Court would show that theobjections of TS Power Utilities, with regard to the excess allocationand also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of 655 numbers, werecategorically rejected and the final list appended to the Concluding Reporthas been expressly affirmed. It is submitted that as such there was anexpress direction to the power utilities of both the States and all concernedto implement the report of One Man Committee.

3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior Advocatethat a perusal of the Concluding Report of the One Man Committeemakes it explicit that both the Power Utilities have to absorb 655employees each as per Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It issubmitted that this figure of 655 has also been reiterated by this Court inthe subsequent judgment and order dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted thatin the operative directions in the Concluding Report, it has expresslybeen stated that allocation made is final and binding both on the employerand employees; and failure to implement the same may be reported tothe Supreme Court for remedial or punitive action. It is submitted thatthe only exception carved out in the said directions was with regard tothose employees who have attained the age of 58 years in the year2020, who will be kept out of the allocation process. It is submitted thatnone of the petitioners have attained the age of 58 years in the year2020.

3.3. It is submitted that all the 84 petitioners figured in the final listprepared by the One Man Committee. The names of the petitionerswere duly mentioned in the said list, which was prepared utilities wise bythe One Man Committee. It is submitted that as per the final list 28petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 members had to beabsorbed in TS Transco, similarly 21 petitioners had to be absorbed inTS Discoms.

3.4. It is submitted that pursuant to the passing of the ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020 by the One Man Committee, Andhra PradeshPower Utilities have implemented the directions in toto, as per the finallist annexed to the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 prepared by theOne Man Committee.

3.5. It is submitted that on one hand, the Andhra Pradesh PowerUtilities, while implementing the directions have relived the applicants, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahowever TS Power Utilities have not absorbed the petitioners, whichaction is in teeth of directions issued by this Court accepting One ManCommittee report of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D M Dharmadhikari.

3.6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein ought not have beendropped by TS Power Utilities in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2020Bbecause; (I) apparently the names of the petitioners are part of theConcluding Report dated 20.06.2020 and allocation list of Direction Nos.IIand III ; (II) none of the petitioners had attained the age of 58 years inthe year 2020 and thus are outside the scope and ambit of DirectionNo.I; (III) the relieving orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh Utilities topetitioners upon being allocated to TS Utilities dated 20.06.2020 in termsCof Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 are upheld and said allocationhas become final in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2020; (IV) ThatTS Power Utilities have truncated the entire allocation by indulging intore- allocation of retired employees. The lists annexed to office orderhave two lists, one of (Employee absorbed), second list comprises ofDthose employees who were allocated by One Man Committee tocorresponding Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities and they got expired orhave attained the age of 58 years. It is submitted that said second list isappended only to cause confusion and none of the employees in thesecond list are part of the final lists of TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCLor TSNPDCL as per the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 r/wEcompliance report dated 26.06.2020.

3.7. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior Advocatethat despite express directions from this Court read with directions ofConcluding Report dated 20.06.2020, the respondent contemnors - TSPower Utilities are in willful disobedience in not having implemented theFallocation made by the One Man Committee as per the final list, leavingthe petitioners, who were to be absorbed in the power utilities of theTelangana State high and dry. It is submitted that non-compliance isborne out by the following:

(I).That the office order dated 17.12.2020 issued by the TSGGenco which is contrary to the report of the One ManCommittee accepted by this Court; A.that as per report of the One Man Committee, TS Gencowas to absorb 300 employees in total, from AP Genco; B.that since TS Genco has already admitted 26 employees inHterms of Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by TS Genco ought to be 300 asper the judgment dated 7.12.2020;

C.that however, TS Genco has reduced this number of 226employees and resultantly 28 petitioners are dropped theirallocation to TS Genco held to be absolute and all 28petitioners have not attained the age of 58 years and thusare outside the purview of direction. It is submitted that thisis contrary to the judgment of this Court, the direction no. Istipulates to exclude retired persons from TS Gencoallocation list annexed to Concluding Report and none ofthe petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I; D.that therefore, TS Genco have devised the office order tocircumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of thenumbers and truncating the allocation lists and contemnorsare guilty of dropping 28 petitioners, as a result of willfuldisobedience of the order of this Court;

E.that the list of employees absorbed does not include the 28petitioners who were already included in the final list of theOne Man Committee. It is submitted that the said listsannexed to office order are prepared to confuse the tally ofallocation lists and to suppress the fact that TS Genco hasabsorbed only 226 (out of 300), a list of 252(226 + 26) hasbeen appended to office order to mislead this Court byrepeating the same 26 employees who were already admittedon 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of One ManCommittee. It is submitted that further a list of 48 employeesis appended, these are employees who were never part of300 employees allocated to TS Genco and the list isfraudulently appended, just to display and match thenumbers.

3.8. It is further submitted that similarly office order dated18.12.2020 issued by the TS Transco is nothing but a willful disobedienceof the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and7.12.2020 accepting the report of the One Man Committee. It is submittedthat as per the Concluding Report, TS Transco was to absorb 173employees from AP Transco. It is submitted that since TS Transco hadalready admitted 30 employees in terms of Supplementary Report dated A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by TS Transco ought tobe as per the judgment dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that however, TSTransco has reduced this number to 104 employees and resultantly 35petitioners are dropped despite their allocation to TS Transco held to beabsolute and all 35 petitioners have not attained the age of 58 years andthus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is submitted that this isBcontrary to the judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I only stipulatesto exclude Retired persons from TS Transco list annexed to ConcludingReport and none of the petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that TS Transco issued office order audaciously ignoringthe allocation made under Direction No.II & III as approved by thisCCourt. It is submitted that therefore, TS Transco have devised the officeorder to circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of the numbersand truncating the allocation lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping35 petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the order of thisCourt. It is submitted that the list of employees absorbed does not include the 35 petitioners who were already included in the final list of the OneDMan Committee. The said lists annexed to office order are prepared toconfuse the tally of allocation lists and suppress the fact that TS Transcohas absorbed only 104 (out of (173 +8), a list of 134 (104 +30) has beenappended to office order to mislead this Court by repeating the same 30employees who were already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide SupplementaryEReport of One Man Committee. It is further submitted that the employeeswho were never part of 173 employees allocated just to TS Transco andthe list is fraudulently appended to display and match the number.

3.9. It is further submitted that even the office order dated

3.9. It is further submitted that even the office order dated 18.12.2020 issued by the TSNPDCL would also tantamount to contemptFand willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court.It is submitted that as per the Concluding Report, TSSPDCL was toabsorb 113 employees from APSPDCL. It is submitted that sinceTSSPDCL had already admitted 15 employees in terms of SupplementaryReport dated 11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted byTASSPDCL ought to be (113+2) as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020.GIt is submitted that however, TSSPDCL has reduced this number to 66employees and resultantly 20 petitioners are dropped despite theirallocation to TSSPDCL held to be absolute and all 20 petitioners havenot attained age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of DirectionI. It is submitted that this is contrary to the judgment of this Court, theHDirection No.I only stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSSPDCL

Allocation list annexed to the Concluding Report and none of thepetitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted thatTSSPDCL issued office order audaciously ignoring the allocation madeunder Direction Nos. II & III as approved by this Court. It is submittedthat therefore, TSSPDCL have devised the office order to circumventthe orders of this Court with jugglery of the numbers and truncating theallocation lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping 20 petitioners as aresult of willful disobedience of the order of this Court. It is submittedthat the list of employees absorbed does not include the 20 petitionerswho were already included in the final list of the One Man Committee.The said lists annexed to office order are prepared to confuse the tallyof allocation lists and suppress the fact that TSSPDCL has absorbedonly 66 (out of (113 +2), a list of 81 (66+15) has been appended to officeorder to mislead this Court by repeating the same 15 employees whowere already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of OneMan Committee. It is further submitted that the employees who werenever part of 113 employees allocated just to TSSPDCL and the list isfraudulently appended to display and match the number.

3.10. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned SeniorAdvocate that the office order dated 19.12.2020 issued by the TSNPDCLis also in teeth of the judgment and order passed by this Court. It issubmitted that as per the Concluding Report, TSNPDCL was to absorb69 employees from APLPDCL & APSPDCL. It is submitted that sinceTSNPDCL, the net employees to be admitted by TSSPDCL ought to be69 as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020. It is submitted that however,TSNPDCL has reduced this number to 60 employees and resultantlypetitioner no.83 is dropped despite their allocation to TSNPDCL held tobe absolute and the said single petitioner has not attained age of 58years and thus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is submitted thatthis is contrary to the judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I onlystipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSNPDCL Allocation listannexed to the Concluding Report and petitioner no.83 is not retired interms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that therefore, TSNPDCL havedevised the office order to circumvent the orders of this Court withjugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation lists and contemnorsare guilty of dropping 1 petitioner as a result of willful disobedience ofthe order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of employees absorbeddoes not include the petitioner no.83 who was already included in thefinal list of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to office A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aorder are prepared to confuse the tally of allocation lists and suppressthe fact that TSNPDCL has absorbed only 60 (out of 69), but a list 65has been appended to office order to mislead this Court. It is furthersubmitted that the employees who were never part of 69 employeesallocated just to TSNPDCL and the list is fraudulently appended to displayand match the number.B

3.11. It is submitted that from the above, it is apparent that TSPower Utilities have not implemented the judgment dated 7.12.2020passed by this Court. It is submitted that after confirmation of theConcluding Report of the One Man Committee and allocation lists, thiswas only a mechanical exercise of admission of the employees based onCthe lists, but TS Power Utilities have reopened the entire lists and indulgedin unilateral pick and choose.

3.12. It is submitted that in terms of direction VI of the One ManCommittee, the petitioners are to be given posting and joining orders. Itis submitted that the direction issued is followed by Andhra PradeshDPower Utilities, but Telangana Power Utilities have unilaterally alteredthe allocation lists and have denied posting and joining orders of 84petitioners.

Making above submissions, it is prayed to punish the respondent/contemnors Telangana Power Utilities for deliberate and willfulEdisobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and7.12.2020 and not acting as per the Concluding Report of the One ManCommittee.

4.0. Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior Advocateshave appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors – Telangana PowerFUtilities. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the TS PowerUtilities that vide order dated 28.11.2019 this Court constituted One ManCommittee headed by Justice D M Dharmadhikari (Retd.) to frame themodalities and finalize the allocation of employees between the PowerUtilities of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. One Man Committeedetermined the modalities and submitted final report dated 26.12.2019Gallocating 655 employees out of 1157 employees from TS power Utilitiesto Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities while retaining 502 employees in TSPower Utilities, as per the opinion given by them. That aggrieved by thefinal report dated 26.12.2019, the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities filedMiscellaneous Application Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2019 in Civil AppealH

No. 11435 of 2019. That this Court by an order dated 24.1.2020 directedthe Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to make a representation and samewas to be considered by the One Man Committee and take appropriatedecision.

4.1. It is submitted that in terms of the direction of this Court, anapplication was made by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities on 3.2.2020before the One Man Committee and the TS Power Utilities weresubmitted their objections. That during the hearing before the One ManCommittee, TS Power Utilities agreed to accommodate 71 employeesfrom Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouseand medical grounds. That the One Man Committee vide supplementaryreport dated 11.3.2020 allocated 71 employees from Andhra PradeshPower Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouse and medical groundsetc. and directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to identify remaining584 employees (655-71 = 584) for allocation from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana, since Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities had accepted 655employees allocated by TS Power Utilities. Accordingly, the TS PowerUtilities issued posting orders to 71 employees allocated bySupplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. That thereafter Andhra PradeshPower Utilities submitted a report of 584 employees allocable fromAndhra Pradesh to Telangana vide their letter dated 12.3.2020. Aggrievedby the letter dated 12.03.2020 of Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, arepresentation was made by TS Power Utilities to the One ManCommittee to reconsider the list submitted by Andhra Pradesh PowerUtilities being contrary to modalities. It is submitted that at that stage,One Man Committee filed an application in MA No.915 of 2020 in MANo.60 of 2020 for payment of salaries pending consideration of objectionsmade by the TS Power Utilities. The same came to be allowed by orderdated 8.4.2020. It is submitted that thereafter this Court in Applicationmade by the TS Power Utilities, by an order dated 1.5.2020 observedthat One Man Committee shall take up the objections and take a decisionat an early date after hearing all the affected persons and further directedto take steps for payment of salaries to the effected employees within aperiod of one week. Accordingly, TS Power Utilities have paid salariesto 584 employees who are figuring in the list dated 12.3.2020communicated by the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to the One ManCommittee.

It is submitted that One Man Committee vide instructions dated11.5.2020 directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to send their A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aproposed revised list limited to 584 employees, duly taking intoconsideration the representations received from the employees. It issubmitted that Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities vide letter dated 26.5.2020submitted a revised list of 655 employees allocable from Andhra Pradeshto TS Power Utilities on the principle of reciprocity. It is submitted thatsaid list includes 71 employees already allocated vide supplementaryBreport dated 11.3.2020 and working TS Power Utilities as on that date.

4.2. It is submitted that thereafter One Man Committee byConcluding Report dated 20.06.2020 annexed the revised list dated26.5.2020 furnished by the Andhra Pradesh and gave further directions.It is further submitted that One Man Committee held that the allocationCof 655 employees from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is concluded. Itfurther observed that at para 28 that allocation list, company wise, postwise prepared by the Andhra Pradesh for allocation from Andhra Pradeshto Telangana is approved and in para no.29 suggested the list annexed toconcluding report to be modified in terms of the directions containedDtherein. It is submitted that direction No.I of para No.29 specifies thatthe retired employees who attained or will be attaining 58 years of age inthe year 2020 can be kept out of the allocation process and their namesin the allocation lists are to be removed. It is submitted that direction no.II specifies that the Sub-Committee Member, Andhra Pradesh may re-examine left out spouse and medical cases and every attempt should beEmade to accommodate them in the State of their option. It is submittedthat direction no.III specifies that all SC/ST employees cases be re-examined to accommodate them as per Modality VII in the State wherethey are notified as SCs and STs so as not to affect their future servicegrowth.F

4.3. It is submitted that on the implementation of the DirectionNo.I of para 29 of the Concluding Report, the TS Power Utilities haveidentified 123 employees who are to be removed from the allocated listof 655 employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly,allocated employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is reducedGfrom 655 to 532 (655- 123). It is submitted that therefore, correspondingly532 members are to be allocated from Andhra Pradesh to TelanganaState. It is submitted that out of 532 allocable employees, 71 employeeshave already joined and working in TS Power Utilities in terms of theSupplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. Accordingly, equal number ofemployees i.e. 123 members were removed from the list of allocableH

employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State on the principle ofReciprocity and Financial Neutrality. It is submitted that in the processof removing 123 members, the 71 employees already allocated have notbeen disturbed. Accordingly, 456 employees are allocable from AndhraPradesh to Telangana State. In respect of two employees allocable fromAndhra Pradesh to Telangana State, a clarification has been sought for,from the Andhra Pradesh.

4.4. It is submitted that thus the TS Power Utilities haveimplemented the judgment dated 7.12.2020 and Concluding Report dated20.06.2020 of the One Man Committee in its true spirit. It is submittedthat thus, the excess employees relieved from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana State are 83 (615-532=83).

4.5. It is submitted that in the process of allocation of employees,One Man Committee has allocated 71 employees working in AndhraPradesh to Telangana State on spouse and medical grounds. They weretreated as part of allocable employees in reciprocation of 655 alreadyallocated to Andhra Pradesh vide Final Report dated 26.12.2019. It issubmitted that therefore, Andhra Pradesh was directed to identifyremaining 584 (655-71) vide the Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020.

4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction No. IIof Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, the same procedure is to befollowed by the Andhra Pradesh whereas Andhra Pradesh vide letterdated 26.8.2020 identified 10 employees, who are shown over and aboveallocable 655 employees, which is just contrary to the reports of the OneMan Committee. It is further submitted that it is open for the AndhraPradesh to adjust the said employees within the Reciprocation ratio andin proportion to allocated employees from Telangana State to AndhraPradesh.

4.7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Telangana StatePower Utilities that entire allocation process undertaken by the OneMan Committee is on the principle of reciprocity and the same wasreiterated in para no.21 of the Concluding Report. It is submitted thatsince 655 employees are already allocated vide Final Report dated26.12.2019 from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh, equal number wereallocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. It is submitted thatthe One Man Committee had taking into consideration of 71 employeesalready allocated, directed the Andhra Pradesh to furnish a list of 584

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aemployees and the same were included as Annexure to the ConcludingReport. In the process of implementation of Directions of ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020, 123 employees are deleted by Telangana State.It is submitted that therefore, the allocable employees from AndhraPradesh to Telangana State shall also stand reduced from 655 to 532(655-123=532). It is submitted that further 10 employees allocated underBDirection No.II are to be accommodated within 532 including 71employees already allocated. However, the Andhra Pradesh has notundertaken any exercise thereby leading to retention of 83 employeesallocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State, which lead to thepresent situation. It is submitted that instead of rectifying the same, AndhraCPradesh is seeking to justify their stand by filing intervention petition,which is unjustified.

4.8. It is further submitted that the principle of reciprocity hasbeen approved by this Court in its judgment dated 7.12.2020 (para 26, 41& 42). It is submitted that this Court has further observed that theDimplementation of the direction cannot be termed as modification of theConcluding Report and both the Power Utilities were directed toimplement the same. It is submitted that thus there is no violation on thepart of the TS Power Utilities in the implementation of the orders dated7.12.2020.EMaking above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentcontempt petition and to direct Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to retainthe corresponding 83 employees deleted from the list of employeesallocable from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana duly adhering to the principleof reciprocity and financial neutrality.

5.0. Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearingFon behalf of the intervenors- Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities hassubmitted that the respective alleged contemnors have committed apparentcontempt of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020.

5.1. It is submitted that the allocation list approved by the OneMan Committee in the Final Report dated 20.06.2020 is final and theGsame is to be implemented by the both the Power Utilities withoutjustifying the allocation list. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities havedevised office orders only to reopen and review the allocation exercisewhich is already concluded and approved by this Court (Direction No.I).

5.2. It is submitted that the retired / retiring employees are notHpart of the financial burden as it was agreed by both the sides to keep them out of allocation exercise. It is submitted that financial neutralitywas already in place while preparing 655 = 655. It is submitted thattherefor, thereafter it does not lie in mouth of any utility that retired /retiring employees are financial burden on them.

5.3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment dated7.12.2020 would show that the objection of TS Power Utilities with regardto excess allocation and also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of655 number were categorically rejected and the final list appended tothe Concluding Report was expressly affirmed. It is submitted that thereis expressed direction to the Power Utilities of both the States and allconcerned to implement the report of the One Man Committee.

5.4. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities has been involved injugglery of figures and they have brought new figures time and again todelay and confuse the allocation process.

5.5. It is submitted that in terms of direction (VI) of the One ManCommittee both the TS and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities wererequired to issue order of posting of their joining and granting sufficienttime to the employee to report for duty. It is submitted that the saiddirection has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh Utilities, howeverTelangana Utilities / Telangana State has unilaterally altered the allocationlist and denied posting and joining orders to 84 petitioners, which is justcontrary to the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020and the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is submitted that therespondent contemnors have disregarded the soul of the allocationexercise and are in serious willful contempt of this Court.

6.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.The present application has been preferred by the 84 employees of theerstwhile Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities who are relieved by the AndhraPradesh Power Utilities, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience ofthe directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated7.12.2020 approving the concluding report / final report submitted by theOne Man Committee consisting of Justice D M Dharmadhikari, FormerJudge of this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as suchthe Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities have already relieved the petitioners.However, the respondent alleged contemnors - Telangana State PowerUtilities have not permitted the applicants to join the duty in the respectiveTS Power Utilities.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A7.0. Before we proceed further to consider the present application,the history which led to constitute of a One Man Committee andchronological list and events are required to be referred to and which assuch had been ultimately dealt with and considered by this Court in thejudgment and order dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in CivilAppeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Applications, which are asBunder:

A

At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case, thedispute is concerning the employees of the Telangana State PowerUtilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.C7.1 The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 was enactedby Parliament to provide for the reorganization of the existing State ofAndhra Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. By Section 3,Telangana State was formed comprising of the territories mentionedtherein and by virtue of Section 4, the State of Andhra Pradesh was tocomprise the territories of the existing state of Andhra Pradesh. SectionD82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 reads as under:

“82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings,etc.—On and from the appointed day, the employees of StatePublic Sector Undertakings, corporations and otherautonomous bodies shall continue to function in suchEundertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a periodof one year and during this period the corporate bodyconcerned shall determine the modalities for distributing thepersonnel between the two successor States.”

7.2. The State of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh issued governmentForders for Distribution Companies, for Generation Companies and forTransmission Corporation whereby assets and liabilities of the aforesaidcorporations and companies were apportioned between the two newStates along with the posts sanctioned for the employees working inthose power sector corporations/companies. However, the Power UtilitiesGof the two newly formed States (Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities andTelangana Power Utilities) could not arrive at any consensus with regardto modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel. The power utilitiesof Telangana unilaterally relieved 1157 employees working with powerutilities of Telangana to join in respective power utilities of AndhraPradesh. Number of employees filed writ petitions in High CourtH

challenging the decision of the power utilities of Telangana. 242employees, who were working in power utilities of Andhra Pradesh gotthemselves relieved and joined in power utilities of Telangana. The powerutilities of Telangana were motivated by principle of nativity, i.e., thoseemployees whose service records mentioned them as resident of anypart of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh were relieved and thosewho belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana werepermitted to join at Telangana by their self-option, against which writpetition was filed before the High Court. The High Court by its commonjudgment dated 02.02.2018 allowed the writ petitions, set aside theimpugned action of power utilities of Telangana relieving 1157 employeesand issued further directions. The High Court specifically disapprovedthe principle of nativity, which was the factor for allocation of theemployees by the Telangana State power utilities.

7.3. The matter reached to this Court and this Court upheld theorder of the High Court. However, noticing that two States have notbeen able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the modalitiesfor distributing the personnel between two States, appointed One ManCommittee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judgeof this Court. In the order dated 28.11.2018 this Court specifically madeit clear that the decision of the One Man Committee shall be final andbinding on all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the twoStates as well as the employees and shall be executed by all the partiesas an order of this Court. This Court also observed that in case anyclarification or further direction is required by any of the parties they areentitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutory application in theproceedings.

7.4. That thereafter, after considering the representation by allconcerned and the respective stake holders, the Committee on 17.04.2019had finalised XIV modalities to be adopted for allocation of the personnelbetween two States in accordance with Section 82 of the Andhra PradeshReorganisation Act, 2014. Thereafter, the Telangana Power GenerationCorporation Limited filed an application questioning the modalitiesfinalised by One-Man Committee. However, this Court did not entertainthe said application. That thereafter, a report title as “Final Report ofOne-Man Committee” dated 26.12.2019 was submitted by One-ManCommittee. Along with the report, a final allocation list in the two Statescorporations/companies was prepared and annexed. List of 655 personnel, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awho were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh utilities assubmitted by sub-Committee Members on behalf of Telangana utilitieswas approved by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee and was part of thefinal list. That the Andhra Pradesh utilities were aggrieved by the finallist communicated in the final report filed Interlocutory Applications. Itwas the case on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities that theBmodalities have not been correctly implemented and the list annexed isnot in accordance with the modalities. This Court disposed of the saidapplication with following observations:

“This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the workof allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, theCmodalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all,to which, there is no dissension between the parties. Therebeing no dispute regarding modalities, in event, there is someerror or mistake in the working of the modalities that can bepointed out to the same committee by means of a representationDand we hope and trust that the committee shall look into thesaid grievance and correct the error, if any. We also make itclear that if the representation is submitted by the applicant,copy of the same shall be given to the power utilities of boththe Sates, who may also have liberty to submit a response tothose representation, which may be considered by the oneEman committee. The representation be submitted within twoweeks and response thereto be also submitted within two weeksthereafter.”

7.5. After the order dated 24.01.2020, the One-Man Committeeafter deliberations with all stakeholders submitted a Supplementary ReportFdated 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 andGhandicapped employees or their dependents.

7.6. In the Supplementary Report, the One-Man Committeedirected that the entire allocation process based on the allocation listwith the Final Report and Supplementary Report be completed by30.03.2020. A clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by theHOne-Man Committee. Aggrieved by Supplementary Report, the

Telangana power utilities filed Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of2020 with regard to 584 employees, who were directed to be identifiedby Sub-Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh. This Court disposedof the said application observing that the objections with regard to 584employees were to be considered by One Man Committee.

7.7. 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 numbersfrom 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-ManCommittee in the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approving thelist of Sub-Committee Members of the Andhra Pradesh. In theConcluding 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 boththe 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 Lists willbe removed.

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 reexamined 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AIV. All the employees finally allocated to a Public Utility willbe paid regular salary from January 2020 and arrears ofsalary due with other benefits attached to the posts. Thepayments of salary partly or fully made by the Companies inthe Two States in the interim period pending finalization ofallocation during coronavirus pandemic, will be shared/Breimbursed by the companies in the Two States mutually bypaying and claiming reimbursement, if necessary, for thepayments made in the interim period. It is made clear that theentire burden of salary and arrears of salary for eachemployee would be on the Company to which the employee isCfinally allocated and the said Company will reimburse interimpayments pending allocation made if any by the Company towhich the employee has not been finally allocated.

A

V. All employees not included in the Allocation List of AP andTS and serving on “order to serve” basis in the CompaniesDon 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 sufficientEtime to the employees to report for duties, keeping intoconsideration the constrains on movements in the currentcoronavirus pandemic period and the consequent lockdownimposed.

VII. All Employers of the Power Utilities in the Two States willFfacilitate 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 from oneCompany in the State to Company in another Slate.

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

G

7.8. After the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, a member ofthe Sub-Committee of Andhra Pradesh power utilities sent a letter datedH

26.06.2020 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 AndhraPradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities and 10 furtheremployees were relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for thereasons mentioned therein.

After submission of the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 andfollow-up action taken by the Andhra Pradesh Power utilities, numberof miscellaneous applications have been filed by Telangana State PowerUtilities, by several employees as well as employees’ associations. TheTelangana State Power Utilities Generation Corporation prays for thefollowing reliefs:

“a) Clarify that the Concluding Report dated 20- 06-2020submitted by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee is illegal andarbitrary, being contrary to the Orders passed by this Hon’blecourt and the Final Report dated 26-12-2019 submitted by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee.

b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees and 242employees made by the Hon’ble One-Man Committee as perFinal Report dt. 26-12-2018, (i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502+242) to TS Power Utilities and 655 from TS to AP Powerutilities), as Final in terms of the Order dt. 28.11.2018 passedin present Civil Appeal. c) Clarify that the allocation of 4460and 71 employees (4531) to TS Power Utilities vide FinalReport dt. 26.12.2019 and Supplementary Report dt.11.03.2020, is final and no further allocation to TS PowerUtilities is Permissible.

d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far as ParaNo.27, authorizing the Member, Sub- committee of AP tounilaterally identify and allocate 584 employees to TS PowerUtilities is contrary to the orders dated 28-11-2018 in CivilAppeal No.11435/2018.

e) Clarify the orders dated 28-11-2018 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 passed by this Hon’bIe Court; and

f) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fitand appropriate by this Hon’ble Court in the facts andcircumstances of the present case.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7.9. Similar prayers were made by other Telangana Power Utilities.That by a detailed order dated 7.12.2020, this Court dismissed theMiscellaneous Applications filed by the Telangana State Power Utilities.While dismissing the respective Miscellaneous Applications filed by theTelangana State Power Utilities which were dismissed after consideringin detailed the rival submissions/ objections against the final report datedB20.06.2020, certain observations are made by this Court, which are veryrelevant while considering the present application, which are as under:

40. We may further observe that the list of 655 employeessubmitted by Telangana State power utilities forallocation to Andhra Pradesh power utilities has beenapproved by the One- Man Committee for which thereis no dispute. The One-Man Committee has undertakenexercise to identify the list of 655 employees from AndhraPradesh power utilities to be transferred to TelanganaState power utilities. The proceeding to balance thenumber of employees from Telangana State powerutilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities being 655,we fail to understand that how the applicants can raisethe issue regarding number of allocable employees tobe considered by this Court in these proceedings.

C

D

41. The submission which has been much pressed by thelearned counsel for the applicants is that number ofemployees allocated to Telangana State power utilitiesis much more as compared to those which have beenallocated from Telangana State power utilities to AndhraPradesh power utilities. The applicants have repeatedlyin their application and their objection before theOne-Man Committee have referred to 502 out of 1157,242 self-relieved employees and 71 spouse and medicalcases plus 584 which have been permitted to beidentified by Member of Andhra Pradesh Sub-Committee. The submission is that 502+242+71+584becomes 1399, hence 1399 have been allocated toTelangana State power utilities as against 655, whichhas been allocated from Telangana State power utilitiesto Andhra Pradesh power utilities. We may need to lookinto the above submission on the basis of each figureclaimed by the applicant.

E

F

G

H

42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to theAapplicant is balance from 1157 by reducing it by 655.The 502 figure as noted above, 1157 is the number ofpersons, which were initially relieved by Telangana Statepower utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilitiesunilaterally which decision was set aside by the HighBCourt and was upheld by this Court. Out of 1157 only655 have been allocated to Andhra Pradesh powerutilities, which was approved by Final Report dated26.12.2019 of the One- Man Committee. How allocationof 502 is claimed when they are the employees, whoremained on Telangana State without they beingCallocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities apart from655 from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Furtheremployees working in Telangana State were allowed toremain in Telangana State, hence, allocation fromTelangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655 andDaddition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.

A

D

43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number ofself-relieved employees from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana State. Admittedly, 242 employees are, thus,who got themselves self- relieved from Andhra Pradeshwithout there being any order or without there beingany direction by anyone. These 242 employees werepermitted joining by Telangana power utilities by itsown. These 242 employees having never been allocatedto nor being part of any allocation cannot be added infigure by Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, whichis agreed spouse and medical ground cases by both theparties. 71 is part of 655, which is now being identifiedby Andhra Pradesh to be allocated to Telangana State.By taking this no.71 in Supplementary Report permittingAndhra Pradesh to identify only 584, thus, it is only584+71, i.e., 655 employees, which are now beingsought to be allocated to the Telangana State by OneMan Committee. We, thus, do not find any merit in thecontention of the applicant that 1399 employees havebeen allocated to Telangana State as against 655allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165 wasconsidered by the One-Man Committee, which isreflected from the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020.The above objection has been duly considered andanswered by the One-Man Committee in paragraphs25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Concluding Report, which isto the following effect:- “25. The second submission on behalf of TS is thatwith the Supplementary Report, this Committee hadIdentified total 2165 employees in the list given toAP Sub Committee member for proposing allocationfrom that list. It is urged on behalf of TS, thatallocation list proposed by AP is not out of 2165listed employees with the Supplementary Report ofthis Committee.

26. It is true, as urged on behalf of TS, that with theSupplementary Report, this Committee had identified2165 employees bused on modality Nos. 5 whichrequires consideration of every employee for hishome district and his adjustment as far as possiblein the State in which his home district falls.

27. This Committee has to be open to correction. TheCommittee is also of the view that modality No. Valone is not decisive and modalities no. I to IV are tobe cumulatively taken into consideration and appliedto make allocation in proportion to the availableposts in each Company in the Two States. TS sidehas accepted that 114 employees from out of 584employees proposed for allocation by A.P to T.S areincluded in 2165 employees identified by thisCommittee in the lint annexed with SupplementaryReport. The remaining 470 employees (falling outside2165 employees identified with the supplementaryreport) have been proposed by A.P for T.S in thereport of the Sub Committee Member. Thejustification shown is that it is to match the numberof employees with the available posts in variouscompanies.

28. In the above circumstances, mentioned above,this Committee finds the Allocation Listscompany-wise and post-wise proposed by APdeserves approval and it is so approved.”

48. Now, one more objection of the applicants, which needsto be noticed is the objection that even the ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020 is not final report andSub-Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh has beenauthorised to modify the list. Applicants have referredto direction Nos. I, II and III of the Concluding Report,which is to the following effect:-

I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21of the Supplementary Report of this Committeeregarding retired employees on both sides, it isfurther directed, that in both the States, employeeswho have attained or will be attaining 58 Years ofage in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocationprocess and their names in the Allocation Lists willbe removed.

II. In the allocation process of the present dimensionand undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possiblefor the Committee to satisfy individual needs andcomforts and service prospects of every employee.The allocation process has been finalized on laiddown principles contained in the modalities andelbow room, wherever permissible, in the modalitieshas been given effect to. The committee howeverdirects the Sub Committee member of AP tore-examine any left-out spouse and medical casesand every attempt should be made to accommodatethem in the state of their option.

III. All SC/ST employees cases be reexamined toaccommodate them as per modality VIII in the Statewhere they are notified as SCs or STs so as not toaffect 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 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

attaining 58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be keptout of the allocation process and their names in theAllocation Lists will be removed. In SupplementaryReport in paragraph 21, the One-Man Committee hasstated:- A

“21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retiredemployees between years 2014 to 2020 in eachPower Utility in each State need not be displacedonly for pensioner benefits payable to them.”

B

50. The above indicates that both the parties had agreedCbefore the One-Man Committee that all retired employeesbetween years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility ineach State need not be displaced. Thus, the above wasagreement between both the parties before the One-ManCommittee and direction No.I only an extension of thesaid agreement, i.e., whoever shall be attaining 58 yearsDof age in 2020 shall be kept out of allocation process.As per paragraph 21 of the Supplementary Report,those, who retire till then were already kept out of theallocation and the extension till the end of 2020 cannotbe said to be unreasonable. The allocation processEbeing not yet finalised and awaiting finalisation for lastseveral years, those who retire either in Telangana Stateor Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decided not to bedisplaced only for the purpose of shoulderingpensionary liability. The direction No.I is equitable.

C

D

F51.The applicants further submit that after the ConcludingReport dated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020,Andhra Pradesh power utilities have struck 119 namesfrom the incoming 655 list from the Telangana Statepower utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. Weare of the view that the said dropping is onlyGconsequential to the decision of the One-Man Committeeas reflected in paragraph 21 of Supplementary Reportand direction No.I of Concluding Report. The AndhraPradesh power utilities have also deleted 50 names fromthe list of 584 employees outgoing from Andhra Pradeshpower utilities to Telangana State power utilities, which G

H

was again in compliance of the One-Man Committee’sdecision. Any consequential action taken in pursuanceof the Concluding Report cannot be said to be notcontemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannotbe said to be an open ended report. The consequenceof Concluding Report has to be taken to its logical ends.Further, 10 employees have been added by directionNos. II and the reasons have been given in the letterdated 26.06.2020 for relieving them, which is againconsequence of direction Nos.I and II. We, thus, are ofthe view that the One-Man Committee has consideredall materials and objections placed before it by bothsides including the representation of the employees andemployees organisations submitted from time to time. Theprocess which was initiated by submitting Final Reportdated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by SupplementaryReport dated 11.03.2020 and Concluding Report dated20.06.2020. The One- Man Committee being aware ofall objections and having taken a conscious decision tofinalise the allocation between two States, we do not findany such error in the process which may warrant anyclarification or direction by this Court. We may furthernotice that the exercise undertaken by the One-ManCommittee is to allocate 655 from Telangana State toAndhra Pradesh and same number from Andhra Pradeshto Telangana State. Apart from the above twoallocations, other personnel, who were working inTelangana State and Andhra Pradesh were not disturbedby allocation.

52. Learned counsel for the applicants have also takenexception to reciprocity of 655 number. We do not findthat there is any error in reciprocity. The One-ManCommittee took a decision that when 655 employeesare coming from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh,same number should go from Andhra Pradesh toTelangana State. In the Concluding Report, final listhas been annexed, which is utility- wise andpersonnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We,thus, do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous AB

C

DE

F

G

H

1132SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AApplications filed by Telangana State power utilitiesbeing M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, whichare dismissed.”

8.0. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that this Court specificallyobserved and held that the Final Report dated 26.12.2019 submitted byBthe One Man Committee along with allocation list is final and conclusiveand is binding to both the States and respective Power Utilities viz.Telangana Power Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities. Theonly exception was with respect to those employees who attained theage of 58 years in the year 2020. Those employees with the consent ofthe respective Power Utilities were kept out of allocation process. It isCto be noted that the respective applicants – 84 petitioners figured in thefinal list prepared by One Man Committee. The names of the petitionersare duly mentioned in the said list of the One Man Committee Reportwhich is prepared Utilities wise. Out of 84 petitioners and as per theFinal List of 28 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 petitionersDhad to be absorbed in TS Transco and 21 petitioners had to be absorbedin TS Discoms. As observed herein above, the respective Andhra PradeshPower Utilities have already relieved respective petitioners and thereafterthey are no more continued with their erstwhile employers – AndhraPradesh Power Utilities respectively. Therefore, once the names of the84 petitioners figured in the Final List prepared by the One ManECommittee and the Final Report has been accepted and approved bythis Court and it is directed that both the States and their respectiveState Power Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One ManCommittee and Final List prepared and communicated with theSupplementary Report / Final Report, thereafter any deviation from the Fsame would tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issuedby this Court. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the earlierorder, this Court has specifically observed and made it clear that thedecision of the One Man Committee shall be final and binding on all theparties including the Power Utilities Companies of the two States as well as employees and shall be executed by all the parties as an order ofGthis Court. In that view of the matter, the respective subsequent officeorders dated 17.12.2020 (issued by the TS Genco), office order dated18.12.2020 (issued by the TS Transco), office order dated 18.12.2020 (issued by the TSNPDCL) and the office order dated 19.12.2020 (issuedby the TSSPDCL) are just contrary to the directions issued by this CourtHand contrary to the Supplementary Report / Final Report submitted by

the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 which would tantamount towillful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. Again, theTelangana State Power Utilities have raised the same issues with respectto the Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality, which were earlier raisedbefore this court by filing respective Miscellaneous Applications andsame came to be dismissed by this court vide order dated 7.12.2020.Thereafter, to raise the same objections / issues again by the TelanganaState Power Utilities would tantamount to willful disobedience of thedirections issued by this Court. Telangana State Power Utilities cannotbe permitted to raise the same objections / issues again and again, whichwere earlier raised before this Court and this Court held against theTelangana State Power Utilities. There must be an end to a litigation. Bypermitting the Telangana State Power Utilities and /or any other partiesto raise the issues / objections again and again, the object and purpose ofconstituting One Man Committee by this Court would be frustrated.This Court purposefully directed to constitute the One Man Committeeconsisting of Mr. Justice D M Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of thisCourt to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of theemployees and other disputes with respect to the respective Power Utilitiesof both the States. It is very unfortunate that the State of Telangana andTelangana Power Utilities have continued to re-agitate the issues, whichare already held against them earlier.

9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, wehold the respective Telangana Power Utilities for willful and deliberatedisobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 andother allied Miscellaneous Applications and we hold them guilty for thecontempt for the same, for which, they are liable to be suitably punished.At this stage, it is required to be noted that as observed herein above, thepetitioners are already relieved by the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilitiessince long and because of the aforesaid office orders the respectivepetitioners are not permitted to join in the respective Telangana PowerUtilities and their future is at stake and they are without any salary fromthe date they are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh PowerUtilities. Before we pass any further order on the sentence / punishment,we give one additional opportunity to the respective Telangana PowerUtilities i.e. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to complywith the directions issued by this Court in the final judgment and orderdated 7.12.2020 and Concluding Final Report submitted by the One Man AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACommittee dated 20.06.2020 and to absorb all the respective petitionersin the respective Telangana Power Utilities / establishment as per thelist approved by the One Man Committee which would have a directbearing on the punishment / sentence to be imposed. We give furthertwo weeks’ time to respective Telangana Power Utilities / Corporationto absorb the petitioners. We also direct the respective Telangana PowerBUtilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to paysalary and other service benefits to the petitioners from the day they arerelieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, to beimplemented within two weeks.

Put up on 31.10.2022 for further order.C

Divya PandeyDirections issued.

(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H