In Writ Petitions concerning staff allocation during the bifurcation of APSPDCL into APSPDCL and APCPDCL, the Court addressed claims of arbitrary staff distribution and locus standi, ultimately finding the allocation lawful.
No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending if any stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.4905 &12101 of 2021
COMMON ORDER :
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.
2
Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited” i.e., 4th respondent herein.
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 3rd and 4th 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 4th respondent Corporation at the cost of the interest of many seniors who have been still discriminatively working for 3rd respondent. The other problem is regarding excessive allocation of staff beyond staffing patron that too allowing the original employees of 3rd respondent to work in 4th respondent till their retirement and reverting back of said post to 3rd 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
3
seniority list of Accounts service is being filed as one of the material papers.
It is further stated that, after the said arbitrary and discriminative final allocation of employees to the 4th respondent Corporation, contrary to the letter and spirit of the said G.O., the 4th 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 5th petitioner brought the grievance of all the petitioners to the notice of 3rd and 4th 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 3rd and 4th respondents ventilating their grievance. But the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence, the present writ petitions.
The 3rd respondent while denying all the averments made in the petitions contended that though the 1st petitioner has submitted a request letter dated 10.06.2021 to call back the 6th respondent Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao to 3rd respondent Discom, since already the bifurcation of the
4
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 3rd respondent i.e., S.O.O.Ms.599, dated 11.9.2020 and Letter dated 27.11.2020, the 1st 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 4th respondent to the petitioners. Hence the allegations leveled against the 3rd 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 4th respondent/APCPDCL because of newly formation CRDA Circle in the jurisdiction of 4th respondent, that too just for the sake of administrative convenience only. However the said additional posts will be re-allotted to 3rd 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., 1st respondent and the same was approved by 1st 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
5
they are silent and now they are knocking the doors of the court, which is not fair on part of them.
The 5th 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.
6
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 3rd and 4th respondents in arbitrarily allocating excessive staff of different cadres of Accounts Service beyond 35% ratio meant for 4th 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 3rd and 4th respondents ought not to ignore the options exercised by the senior most personnel opting the 4th respondent corporation order to accommodate the junior most personnel in 4th respondent corporation since the same is nothing but contrary to the letter and spirit of the G.O. meant for it.
7
do undue advantage to unofficial respondents and others at the cost of the interest of genuine eligible seniors who really opted for the 4th 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.
“3. The division of posts shall be as follows:
8
(b) Posts at corporate head quarters office: 35% CPDCL : 65% SPDCL considering only the posts of erstwhile APSPDCL prior to state bifurcation.
(a) Staff where unit of recruitment is at or below district level: Based on location.
(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.
(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.
(d) For the purpose of division of staff Kurnool and Anantapur districts shall not be included.
(e) Options will be asked and allocation will be done based on induction seniority.”
9
S.O.O.(CGM-HRD) s.No.599, dated 11.09.2020. The 4th 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 3rd and 4th 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 4th respondent corporation at the costs of interest of many seniors who have been still discriminatively working for 3rd respondent is absolutely false and baseless. The 6th 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 6th and 7th respondents in the above WP were allocated to the 4th respondent as per the letter and spirit in GOMsNo.41, dated 5.12.2019.
10
has taken the decision and then sent the said objections to the Government i.e., 1st respondent. After giving the ample opportunity to the employees the Managements of 3rd respondent has acted with regard to the bifurcation of the employees in APSPDCL and APCPDCL in fair manner.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 21-07-2022 Gvl
11
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.4905 &12101 of 2021
Date : 21-07-2022
Gvl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed arbitrary and discriminatory allocation of staff during the bifurcation of APSPDCL and APCPDCL violating the Government Order?
Whether the petitioners possess locus standi to challenge the division of posts as they are herein under district level posts?
Whether the final allocation of employees was carried out in compliance with the Government Order dated 5.12.2019?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Staff of APSPDCL and APCPDCL
Energy Department/1st Respondent
APSPDCL/3rd Respondent
APCPDCL/4th Respondent
Junior Accounts Officers Association
CRDA/APEPDCL
K. Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
