(A.K. Sikri and M.R. Shah, JJ.)
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (TSGENCO) ________________________________________________ Appellant;
v.
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and Others ______________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No(s). 11435/2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 9138/2018), decided on November 28, 2018
With
C.A. No. 11436/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9243/2018, C.A. No. 11437/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9369/2018, C.A. No. 11439/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9710/2018, C.A. Nos. 11441-11443/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11128-11130/2018, C.A. No. 11438/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9289/2018, C.A. No. 11440/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11123/2018, C.A. No. 11444-11452/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18613-18621/2018, C.A. Nos. 11462-11468/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18633-18639/2018, C.A. Nos. 11453-11458/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18622-18627/2018, C.A. Nos. 11459-11461/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18628-18630/2018
Civil Appeal No(s). 11435/2018; (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 9138/2018); C.A. No. 11436/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9243/2018; C.A. No. 11437/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9369/2018; C.A. No. 11439/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9710/2018; C.A. Nos. 11441-11443/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11128-11130/2018; C.A. No. 11438/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9289/2018; C.A. No. 11440/2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11123/2018; C.A. No. 11444-11452/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18613-18621/2018; C.A. Nos. 11462-11468/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18633-18639/2018; C.A. Nos. 11453-11458/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18622-18627/2018; and C.A. Nos. 11459-11461/2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18628-18630/2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Applications for intervention/impleadment are allowed.
3. On the reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh with its bifurcation with two States namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh vide the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2014’), the question that has arisen in the present appeals is about the allocation of the employees of Public Sector Undertakings between the two States. In these appeals, we are concerned with the employees of four Public Sector Undertakings in power sector. These include two power generation companies and two power distribution companies. In view of the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Telangana has formed its two power generation companies. Likewise, similar exercise is undertaken by the State of Andhra Pradesh as well. Accordingly, for State of Telangana following power utility companies have been formed.
1. Telangana Power Generation Corporation (‘TSGENCO’)
2. Transmission Corporation of Telangana (‘TSTRANSCO’)
3. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana (‘TSSPDCL’)
4. Northern Power Distribution Corporation of Telangana (‘TSNPDCL’)
4. For the State of Andhra Pradesh the names of these companies are:
1. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.(APGENCO)
2. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APTRANSCO)
3. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APEPDCL)
4. Southern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APSPDCL)
5. The provision for allocation of the employees in the aforesaid power utilities in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was to be done in accordance with Section 82 of the Act, 2014. This provision reads as under:
“Section 82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings etc.:- On and from the appointed day, the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, corporations and other autonomous bodies shall continue to function in such undertaking, corporation or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States.”
6. As is clear from the above, the employees at State Public Sector Undertakings (which would include the aforesaid power utility companies) were to continue to function in such undertakings etc. for a period of one year. The mandate of the aforesaid provision was that during this period of one year the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States. Unfortunately, this has not been achieved even when more than four years have been elapsed after coming into force of the Act, 2014.
7. Be that as it may, as far as present dispute is concerned, it arose when the State of Telangana issued Lr. No. 686/HRA.A1/2015 dated 06.06.2015 approving guidelines/modalities for final allocation of employees based on nativity of employees as per the service Register. Acting upon the said letter the power utility companies of the State of Telangana issued relieving orders in respect of 1157 employees and directed them to join their counterparts of the utility companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. These employees filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the aforesaid relieving orders. All these writ petitions were heard together and have been decided and disposed of vide common impugned judgment dated 02.02.20181. The High Court has quashed the relieving orders by declaring the same as unconstitutional and unenforceable and has also given certain directions at the end of its judgment which are re-produced below:
“(i) The impugned orders are declared as unconstitutional and unenforceable and they are accordingly set aside.
(ii) The TRANSCOs and GENCOs of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and the TSSPDCL and APSPDCL shall either continue the existing joint committee or constitute a fresh joint committee/committees to determine modalities for the division of the employees within two months from today, without taking the nativity as the criterion.
(iii) The division of the employees based on the criteria determined by the joint committee/committees shall be completed within four months from today.
(iv) Till the division takes place as directed in (iii) supra, the employees working in the Telangana State power utilities, who were relieved, must be allowed to work on par with other employees without any discrimination, in any aspect.
(v) The increments and all other service benefits, such as, Earned Leave Encashment, Leave Travel Concession etc., must be extended to these employees, if not already extended based on the impugned orders, and their seniority must be restored with continuity of service forthwith. They are also entitled to be considered for promotions subject to their eligibility and entitlement so long as they continue to work in the respective power utilities of the State of Telangana.
(vi) The payments made by the Andhra Pradesh State power utilities towards salaries and other allowances, if any, of the petitioners-employees in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court, till the orders were modified by the Supreme Court, shall be reimbursed by the respective Telangana State power utilities, to their counterparts of the Andhra Pradesh State power utilities within three months from today.”
8. In substance, the High Court has decided that since these employees are permanent employees and were working with the power utility companies in the State of Telangana, they could not have been relieved unilaterally by the State of Telangana and the exercise undertaken by the State of Telangana and/or its power utility companies was contrary to the provision of Section 82 of the Act, 2014 which called for determining the modalities for distribution of the personnel between two successor States by undertaking a mutual exercise.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the aforesaid detailed judgment rendered by the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any blemish or error insofar as it discusses the question of law raised therein. The High Court has decided the said question on the basis of well accepted principles of law.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s), however, have submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the High Court had appointed a Committee which was to be headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of this Court as well as the representatives of both the States. It is further stated that this Committee had undertaken the necessary exercise for arriving on a consensus and to work out the modalities on the basis of which allocation of the employees could be ascertained. However, such consensus could not be arrived at and the report was submitted by Justice Dharmadhikari Committee to the Court. Keeping that in view the High Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits. It is further submitted that thereafter the options to these 1157 employees were called for vide order dated 03.11.2017. Learned senior counsel have further pointed out that as per the said options exercised by the employees, 504 employees opted to remain in power utility companies in the State of Telangana whereas 612 employees opted to remain in Andhra Pradesh and 41 employees did not exercise their option. It is also pointed out that there were 229 employees who were natives of State of Telangana and were desirous of joining the power utility companies in the State of Telangana and have been absorbed by the power utility companies of State of Telangana. The aforesaid position has been explained in the statement in tabular form which is as under:
| SL. NO. | NAME OF THE POWER UTILITY | TOTAL NO. EMPLOYEES RELIEVED | OPTION NOT EXERCISED | OPTED TO TELANGANA | OPTED TO ANDHRA PRADESH | TS NATIVE EMPLOYEES RELIEVED FROM AP AND JOINED IN TS POWER UTILITIES (SELF RELIEVED) |
| 1. | TSGENCO | 514 | 19 | 214 | 281 | 152 |
| 2. | TSTRANSCO | 259 | 13 | 87 | 159 | 68 |
| 3. | TSSPDCL | 303 | 08 | 191 | 104 | 9 |
| 4. | TSNPDCL | 81 | 01 | 12 | 68 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 1157 | 41 | 504 | 612 | 229 |
11. In the first place, it is submitted that the High Court in the final judgment has not taken note of the aforesaid development which took place pursuant to its own order. It is further submitted that going by the options exercised by the employees, insofar as State of Telangana is concerned, it has accorded to retain 504 employees who have opted for power utility companies in the State of Telangana. It is further submitted that even in respect of 41 employees it is decided to continue them in Telangana. Submission is that 612 employees who have opted to go to the power utility companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh should be taken by the said companies. The vacancy position in Andhra Pradesh power utility companies is also informed to this Court as per which total 1568 vacancies existed as on 2nd June, 2014 and further additional posts have been created. On that basis 1544 posts are available with the Public Sector Undertakings of State of Andhra Pradesh. This is disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
12. The appellants have also produced a copy of letter dated 13.12.2017 addressed by Mr. K. Vijayanand, Chairman & Managing Director of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited which is addressed to the Power Utility Companies of State of Telangana in which it was inter alia suggested that the power utility companies of State of Telangana as well as State of Andhra Pradesh should consider accommodating the opted employees in the respective Corporations to resolve the issue amicably, though financially burdensome, provided the Telangana State Distribution Companies accommodate all the relieved employees from the said two Distribution Companies. Going by the spirit of this letter Telangana State Power Utility Companies have allowed 229 personnel to join their companies who were Telangana State natives, as already noted above. Their grievance is that State of Andhra Pradesh is not showing any such reciprocity and has not adhered to the advise given in the aforesaid letter dated 13.12.2017 by the Chairman & Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited.
13. It may be kept in mind that the dispute arose and the writ petitions were filed in the High Court on account of relieving orders issued by the Power Utility Companies of Telangana State. The High Court has gone into that dispute and found the relieving orders to be unsustainable in law and have set aside the same. We have upheld the said order. At the same time, it is also necessary that the issue of allocation of these employees in the Public Sector Undertakings of the respective States has to be finally settled in accordance with Section 82 of the Act, 2014. The events which have occurred during the last four years including during the period when the proceedings were pending in the High Court and even after the judgment of the High Court show that the two States have not been able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two States.
14. In these circumstances, learned counsel for all the parties agree that in order to find out a proper and final solution to the problem at hand, this Court can appoint a Committee which would determine the modalities for distributing the personnel i.e. the aforesaid 1157 employees. It is also agreed that one man Committee consisting Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, former Judge of this Court be appointed. Accordingly, one man Committee consisting Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, former Judge of this Court, is appointed. The Hon’ble Judge can take assistance of the representatives from both the States in this matter.
15. We may point out here that this Court had rendered a decision in a batch matter leading with Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2015 titled as Telangana Judges Assn. v. Union of India2. Some of the observations made therein may be relevant for deciding the controversy of distribution of man power, particularly, those which pertained to exercising of option of the concerned employees and the Committee may keep that in mind while undertaking the exercise. We also request the Committee to make an endeavour to complete this exercise within six months.
16. We make it clear that the decision of the one man Committee head by Justice Dharmadhikari shall be final and binding on all the parties including Power Utility Companies of the two States as well as the employees and shall be executed by all the parties as an order of this Court.
17. We may also clarify that in case dispute persists in respect of other employees of these Power Utility Companies of the two States, it would be open to the respective States/Power Utility Companies to bring the same before the said Committee. The High Court in the impugned judgment has already given a direction that till the division takes place the employees working in the Telangana State power utilities, who were relieved, must be allowed to work on par with other employees without any discrimination, in any aspect. It is also directed that increments and all other service benefits, such as Earned Lave Encashment, Leave Travel Concession etc., must be extended to these employees. Since they are allowed to work in Telangana State power utilities, it hardly needs to be clarified that they are entitled to all other service benefits as well including increments and their promotion etc.
18. The power utility companies of both the States shall provide adequate facilities to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari, former judge of this Court in the form of office accommodation, secretarial staff etc. The remuneration of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari, former Judge of this Court is fixed at Rs. three lakhs per sitting which shall be shared equally by the power utility companies of both the States. In addition, actual expenditure for travel, hotel accommodation etc. shall also be reimbursed by the power utility companies of both the States in equal proportion.
19. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
20. However, in case, any clarification or further direction is required by any of the parties they are entitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutory application in these proceedings.
———
1 P.B. Karunakar v. State of Telangana, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 133
2 (2019) 18 SCC 769
