Dismissed

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2022WP/12101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses two writ petitions challenging the arbitrary allocation of staff and premature declaration of seniority lists during the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh Power Distribution Corporations. The Court held the allocation followed G.O.Ms.No.41 guidelines and found petitioners lacked locus standi for district-level posts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions along with miscellaneous petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs and pending cases stood closed.

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.4905 &12101 of 2021

¶2

COMMON ORDER :

¶3

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

¶4

The facts in these two writ petitions are similar and identical and the pleadings which are cited by the petitioners in W.P.No.4905 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in W.P.No.12101 of 2021. W.P.No.4905 of 2021 is taken as lead case and the facts therein are referred to convenience, as under:

¶5

All the petitioners have been working in 4^th respondent Corporation in different capacities. They used to work for 3^rd respondent company till they got allocated to the 4^th respondent Corporation upon division of posts and staff from 3^rd respondent company after its bifurcation in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.41 Energy (Power.I) Department, dated 5.12.2019. While all the petitioners were working for 3^rd respondent in different categories of respective services, the 1^st respondent by way of issuing G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 05.12.2019, bifurcated the 3^rd respondent by creating new DISCOM in the name and style of “Central Power

¶6

¶7

Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited” i.e., 4^th respondent herein.

¶8

It is further stated that the Clause-4(e) of the said G.O. clearly says that “Options will be asked and allocation will be done based on induction seniority.” The Clause-6 of the said GO clearly says that “Movable assets and liabilities will be divided based on 35% CPDCL: 65% SPDCL. For this purpose Kurnool and Anantapur will be excluded.” But contrary to the letter and spirit of the said G.O., division of staff was arbitrarily and discriminatively taken place ignoring the options exercised by the seniors in respective cadres requesting the 3^rd and 4^th respondent corporations as per G.O., but, in vain. As a result of it, till date, many juniors like some of the respondents, arbitrarily and discriminatively, got allocated to 4^th respondent Corporation at the cost of the interest of many seniors who have been still discriminatively working for 3^rd respondent. The other problem is regarding excessive allocation of staff beyond staffing patron that too allowing the original employees of 3^rd respondent to work in 4^th respondent till their retirement and reverting back of said post to 3^rd respondent after retirement of employees in respective cadres. More so, it is very shocking to notice that the seniority of the excessive allocation of staff like some of the unofficial respondents are being shown herein, and to this effect, the provisional

¶9

¶10

seniority list of Accounts service is being filed as one of the material papers.

¶11

It is further stated that, after the said arbitrary and discriminative final allocation of employees to the 4^th respondent Corporation, contrary to the letter and spirit of the said G.O., the 4^th respondent, vide Memo, dated 18.2.2021, communicated the provisional seniority list of CGM, GM, SAO, AO & AAO of Accounts Services as on 31.12.2020 by calling objections without giving reasonable time. As a matter of fact, the 5^th petitioner brought the grievance of all the petitioners to the notice of 3^rd and 4^th respondents on 2.11.2020 by way of sending representations through e-mail. Like how, many associations including Joint Action Committee (JAC) and many individuals made personal representations to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents ventilating their grievance. But the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence, the present writ petitions.

¶12

Counter is filed by the 3^rd respondent in W.P.No.12101 of 2021 taking the same stand in W.P.No.4905 of 2021and for convenience, the averments are stated as under :

¶13

The 3^rd respondent while denying all the averments made in the petitions contended that though the 1^st petitioner has submitted a request letter dated 10.06.2021 to call back the 6^th respondent Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao to 3^rd respondent Discom, since already the bifurcation of the

¶14

¶15

Employees is done and when the petitioners kept silent for long period even after receiving the Lr.No.ENEO1/529/2020OP, dated 11.9.2020 from the Government and even after knowing about the proceedings of 3^rd respondent i.e., S.O.O.Ms.599, dated 11.9.2020 and Letter dated 27.11.2020, the 1^st petitioner request cannot be considered. However viewing the present circumstances the petitioners will also be given chance for promotion as and when they get the opportunity without fail and this assurance given from the 4^th respondent to the petitioners. Hence the allegations leveled against the 3^rd respondent, which is not fair on part of the petitioners. It is further stated that there is no violation of the principle of G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 5.12.2019 and the small variation is done in the 4^th respondent/APCPDCL because of newly formation CRDA Circle in the jurisdiction of 4^th respondent, that too just for the sake of administrative convenience only. However the said additional posts will be re-allotted to 3^rd respondent/APSPDCL, as and when the earlier retirement vacancy arises. The said Ratio of 65(APSPDCL):35 (APCPDCL) including variation posts, was submitted to the Energy Department i.e., 1^st respondent and the same was approved by 1^st respondent on 11.9.2020 itself. Thereafter the employees final allocation has been done vide S.O.O.Ms.No.599, dated 11.9.2020 and after that all the way

¶16

¶17

they are silent and now they are knocking the doors of the court, which is not fair on part of them.

¶18

Counter is filed by the respondents No.5 to 9 in W.P.No.4905 of 2021 and the same was adopted by the respondents No.6 and 7 in W.P.No.12101 of 2021 taking the same stand and for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P.No.4905 of 2021 are stated as under:

¶19

The 5^th petitioner association pertaining to Junior Accounts Officer and it has no locus to challenge the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019, as it is concerned with District Level only. The prayer sought for in these writ petitions is vague and not pertaining to the seniority of the petitioners. The writs of certiorarified mandamus filed by the petitioners do not contain the prayer as to specifying the records that are to be called. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions, without there being any description of the petitioners in the affidavits and with a vague information and prayer and hence the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard Mr. Peeta Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Energy and learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL, AP TRANSCO and SPDCL appearing for the respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 3^rd and 4^th respondents ought to have seen the fact that the very arbitrary allocation of the staff between 3^rd and 4^th

¶22

¶23

respondents prejudiced not only the interest of petitioners but also the interest of all personnel of different cadres of various services. He further argued that the very action of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents in arbitrarily allocating excessive staff of different cadres of Accounts Service beyond 35% ratio meant for 4^th respondent corporation as per G.O by showing them as part and parcel of staffing pattern is nothing but illegal arbitrarily and discriminately besides contrary to G.O., the 3^rd and 4^th respondents ought not to ignore the options exercised by the senior most personnel opting the 4^th respondent corporation order to accommodate the junior most personnel in 4^th respondent corporation since the same is nothing but contrary to the letter and spirit of the G.O. meant for it.

¶24

He further argued that the 4^th respondent, till finalization of all issues relating to division of staff between 3^rd and 4^th respondents, ought not to have initiated steps to finalize the seniority of CGMs, GMs, AOs & AAOs of Accounts Services. But, in instant cases, the 4^th respondent called objections through the provisional seniority issued vide Memo dated 18.2.2021. Hence, the same is bad in the eye of law and the 3^rd and 4^th respondents are precluded from effecting promotions basing on the said seniority which is going to be finalized. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents supposed to act as model employer but in instant cases, they acted according to their whims and fancies in order to

¶25

¶26

do undue advantage to unofficial respondents and others at the cost of the interest of genuine eligible seniors who really opted for the 4^th respondent Corporation. The respondents ought to have acted upon the representations made for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners in the light of the letter and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the 1^st respondent has issued.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019 ordering bifurcation of APSPDCL and APCPDCL along with guidelines of division of posts. The 3^rd respondent has followed the above said G.O as per its stipulations in respect of division of posts. The 1^st and 5^th petitioners have no locus standi to file these writ petitions, since they do not come under the division of posts as per the said G.O., because they are at and below district level posts and the division of posts shall be location only. The petitioners No.2 to 4 are not affected and the G.O.Ms.No.41 is followed. The G.O.Ms.No.41 has been extracted and it need not require any reply. He further submitted that the Clause 4(e) of the said G.O. has been followed.

¶28

It is pertinent to mention here that as per G.O.Ms.No.41, Energy (Power.I) Department, dated 5.12.2019, at Sl.No.3 & 4, which reads as under:

¶29

“3. The division of posts shall be as follows:

¶30

(a) Posts at or below district level : Based on location.

¶31

¶32

(b) Posts at corporate head quarters office: 35% CPDCL : 65% SPDCL considering only the posts of erstwhile APSPDCL prior to state bifurcation.

¶33

The division of staff shall be done as follows:

¶34

(a) Staff where unit of recruitment is at or below district level: Based on location.

¶35

(b) District staff where unit of recruitment is company level: Cadre wise based on ratio of posts sanctioned between Krishna, Guntur & Prakasam on one hand and SPS Nellore, Chittoor and YSR Kadapa on the other hand.

¶36

(c ) Staff where unit of recruitment is Corporate Head quarters office: ratio of posts sanctioned between Krishna, Guntur & Prakasasm on one hand and SPS Nellore, Chittoor and YSR Kadapa on the other hand.

¶37

(d) For the purpose of division of staff Kurnool and Anantapur districts shall not be included.

¶38

(e) Options will be asked and allocation will be done based on induction seniority.”

¶39

On hearing, this Court observed that there is no arbitrary allocation of staff between the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and the petitioners have no locus questioned, since the petitioners 1 and 5 are at or below District Level and the petitioners No.2 to 4 were considered and followed the said G.O. there is no variation in the ratio related to the division of posts to the 4^th respondent at the largest interest of employees. It is absolutely incorrect that the excessive allocation of staff like some of the unofficial respondents is being shown to support their pleadings to that effect the provisional seniority list of accounts service. The government has given approval vide letter dated 11.09.2020 for division of posts among 3^rd and 4^th respondents and the final allocation of the employees has been completed vide

¶40

¶41

S.O.O.(CGM-HRD) s.No.599, dated 11.09.2020. The 4^th respondent has allocated the employees as per the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019. Thereafter the Government has approved the allocation of the employees with APSPDCL and APCPDCL. It is also an admitted fact that the division of posts among 3^rd and 4^th respondents were completed in accordance with letter and spirit in G.O.Ms.No.41. The allegation that many juniors like some of the respondents, arbitrary and discriminatory got allocated the 4^th respondent corporation at the costs of interest of many seniors who have been still discriminatively working for 3^rd respondent is absolutely false and baseless. The 6^th unofficial respondent in WP No.12101 of 2021 was shown in the final seniority list, after consideration of all objections from the employees concerned. The 6^th and 7^th respondents in the above WP were allocated to the 4^th respondent as per the letter and spirit in GOMsNo.41, dated 5.12.2019.

¶42

This Court further observed that the 3^rd respondent had not at fault in allotting the employees as per the G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 5.12.2019 as they have followed the due process in calling the objections from the employees and after receiving the objections from the employees the same has been communicated to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. At that time after submissions of the objections and clarification about some mutual interchange between the APSPDCL, APCPDCL and APEPDCL, the 3^rd respondent

¶43

¶44

has taken the decision and then sent the said objections to the Government i.e., 1^st respondent. After giving the ample opportunity to the employees the Managements of 3^rd respondent has acted with regard to the bifurcation of the employees in APSPDCL and APCPDCL in fair manner.

¶45

In view of the foregoing discussion and upon perusing the entire material available on record, as the respondents have followed the rules in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019, therefore, this Court finds that the material set up by the petitioners is per se illusory, sham and devoid of any merit in the instant petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶48

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶49

Date : 21-07-2022 Gvl

¶50

¶51

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶52

WRIT PETITION Nos.4905 &12101 of 2021

¶53

Date : 21-07-2022

¶54

Gvl

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangiri Chinnammulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Saleem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Sai babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Nizam, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Pasa Ramayyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh