Allowed

P. Srinivas v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC10 Nov 2017WP/24870/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging repatriation orders issued by TSRTC Depot Managers. The court held that due to the unresolved bifurcation of APSRTC and cadre guidelines, employees cannot be discriminated against based on their appointment zone when working on deputation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings of Depot Managers are set aside and writ petitions are allowed.

P. Srinivas Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.25880, 25881, 25886, 25196, 25198, 25201, 25214, 24825, 24849, 24870, 24872, 24874, 24891, 24941, 24987, 25139, 25170, 24605, 24609, 24690, 24697, 24723, 24773, 489 & 6065 OF 2017

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioners that they are working as drivers/conductors/shramiks in various bus depots of the respondent Corporation in the State of Andhra Pradesh, but originally their parent regions are situated in the State of Telangana in TSRTC. All these petitioners claim to be the natives of State of Andhra Pradesh and their original appointment was in the State of Telangana. When matter stood thus, the 3^rd respondent- Depot Managers in all the writ petitions issued letters dated 23.12.2016/15.06.2017/29.06.2017/30.06.2017 repatriating the petitioners to their parent regions in State of Telangana in TSRTC and some of the petitioners are being transferred. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petitions are filed.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that as on today, the respondent Corporation is not totally bifurcated and no such notification was issued till today; that a committee is examining the difficulties of the employees working in A.P and Telangana and the employees also submitted representation to the Managing

¶7

ARR,J

¶8

¶9

Directors of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for their retentions in the working places. It is stated that the employees who were appointed in the State of Telangana, working in the State of Andhra Pradesh on deputation were alone repatriated but the employees, who were appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, working in the State of Telangana State, on deputation were not repatriated. It is also asserted that they are ready to loose their seniority in the State of Telangana if they are to be treated as employees of the APSRTC (Andhra Pradesh), as they have been appointed in erstwhile APSRTC when it was undivided. It is also asserted that on 08.06.2017, a notification was issued to continue the employees of APSRTC on deputation, who belongs to APSRTC till 30.06.2018 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as such, the impugned orders of the 3^rd respondent repatriating the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions stating that some of the petitioners were appointed as drivers and conductors in Greater Hyderabad Zone and they belongs to the regions falling under Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) and they were transferred to different Regions in the State of Andhra Pradesh, on deputation for a period of one year and that their seniority is being maintained at their parent Region i.e, TSRTC. It is stated that the Executive Director (APSRTC), Vijayawada vide his letter dated 08.06.2017 has informed to repatriate all the employees of TSRTC who are working on deputation basis in the Units of APSRTC to

¶11

ARR,J WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶12

¶13

their respective parent organizations on 30.06.2017. It was also informed that the employees of APSRTC who are working in TSRTC on deputation shall also be repatriated to APSRTC by 30.06.2017. As such, the petitioners were relieved by the impugned orders, to report to the Personal Officers, of different region of TSRTC on repatriation to their parent region. That deputation is purely on temporary basis and basing on vacancy position initially for a period of one year. Only on the representations of the petitioners for extension of deputation, the same was considered basing on vacancy position up to 30.06.2017. That the petitioners are not having any pre-existing right to continue their services in the APSRTC and that the posts of conductors and drivers are filled up by recruitment at region level against the sanctions of the particular Region by way of paper notification and their seniority will be counted in that particular region and that their transfer will be considered within the region. That in case of no vacancy or excess staff, the staff on deputation would be sent back/repatriated to their parent region, since they cannot be provided any duty. In view of above facts, since the APSRTC is having excess staff, the deputation conductors and drivers of other regions, who are in excess to the existing conductors and drivers, are repatriated to their parent region since they cannot be provided any duty and their continuation resulted in dis-engagement of contract conductors and contract drivers. As such, petitioners have no locus standi to continue in APSRTC, where the employees are surplus. That post bifurcation, the employees who originally belongs to TSRTC

¶14

ARR,J

¶15

¶16

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶17

by their recruitment must go back to their parent region/corporation. That the Notification of Vice Chairman & Managing Director, dated 18.05.2016 is applicable only to the employees of APSRTC who were appointed in the 13 districts of residual Andhra Pradesh falling in the 4 zones vi., Vizianagaram, Vijayawada, Nellore and Kadapa of residual APSRTC, but the same is not applicable to the petitioners since they are appointed/selected against sanctioned regional post of regions of TSRTC. That the petitioners have no legal right as they have been continued at their request subject to availability of sanctioned vacancies only.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, submits that the Executive Director (AP), issued proceedings dated 08.06.2017 stating that the staff of four zones of APSRTC temporarily transferred and working on deputation basis in other units falling within four zones i.e., Vizianagaram, Vijayawada, Nellore & Kadapa, shall be allowed to continue at their respective current places of work, without repatriating them till 30.06.2018. He submits that the TSRTC also issued notification dated 18.05.2016 ordering that the staff of four zones of APSRTC temporarily transferred and working on deputation basis in other units falling within four zones of APSRTC Vizianagaram,

¶20

¶21

ARR,J WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶22

Vijayawada, Nellore & Kadapa, shall be allowed to continue at their respective current places of work without repatriating them till 30.06.2017 on the pretext that the permitted period of deputation is completed, but the 3^rd respondent issued impugned proceedings repatriating the petitioners, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the cadre bifurcation in both the Corporations has not been taken place so far and there is no actual bifurcation of two Corporations. He also submits that the Depot Manager has no power to issue impugned proceedings transferring employees from one State to another State. In support of his contentions, he relied on the Common Order passed by this Court in WP Nos.1511, 1512, 1513 & 1514 of 2017, dated 16.02.2017. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsels appearing for respondents’ Corporation vehemently argued that the petitioners are working only on deputation, as such, they have no right to continue and that it is for the borrowing department to continue them or repatriate them. It is contended that as there is excess staff, petitioners were repatriated to their parent regions in the State of Telangana. It is also contended that since the petitioners were appointed in the parent region in the State of Telangana in TSRTC, they cannot seek for continuation in the State of Andhra Pradesh in APSRTC. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in V.Mahadeva Reddy v. Tirumala Tirupati

¶23

¶24

ARR,J

¶25

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶26

Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati¹ and Busi Jyothirmay and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh² .

¶27

In this case, admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the appointment of the petitioners in the zones, which now forms part of the State of Telangana. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are natives of residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly, the bifurcation between residuary APSRTC and TSRTC has not been resolved so far and that the process of calling for options also not yet initiated and no guidelines are issued or notified regarding allocation of employees in both the Corporations. This Court in WP No.1511 of 2017 & batch, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying on notifications dated 27.05.2015 and 22.08.2015 issued by the APSRTC, held as follows:

¶28

“9. The relevant portion of the notification, dated 27.05.2015, reads as under:

¶29

“…As guidelines on apportionment of staff were not received till 31.08.2014, again a Notification dated 22.08.2014 was released vide reference 4^th cited, extending the temporary transfers until 31.05.2015 or further instructions on this subject were issued from this Office based on the guidelines on appointment of staff from Government which were yet to be issued, whichever was earlier.

¶30

As the guidelines on apportionment of staff are still awaited from the Government, it is therefore decided to further extend the deputation period in respect of temporarily transferred deputations upto 31.05.2016 or further guidelines are issued, whichever is earlier.”

¶31

The relevant portion of the notification, dated 22.08.2015 reads as under:

¶32

“….The notification dated 27.05.2015 has been issued keeping in view the deputations who originally belong to the Regions (Districts) falling in the State of Telangana and working on deputation in the Regions falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh and vice-versa. The said notification is not applicable to the cases, where deputations are falling within the same State.”

¶33

1 2012 (6) ALT 238 (F.B)

¶34

2 2015 (2) ALD 641

¶35

ARR,J

¶36

¶37

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶38

A combined reading of these two extracted portions makes it clear that a conscious decision is taken by APSRTC to extend the period of deputation of the persons earlier brought on deputation even though they belong to a different State, having regard to the fact that the issue of bifurcation is not finalized and guidelines are not issued with reference to organization of cadres in two Corporations as a consequence to establishment of two separate Corporations carved out of the original Corporation.

¶39

Great emphasis is laid on second paragraph of the notification,

¶40

dated 18.05.2016. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶41

“….Consequent to the functioning of APSRTC as two separate entities w.e.f. 03.06.2015 and in view of the pendency of final apportionment of staff between the two residual entities of the corporation, it is hereby ordered that the staff of four zones of APSRTC temporarily transferred and working on deputation basis in other units falling within four zones of APSRTC (VZM, VJA, NLR and KDP) shall be allowed to continue at their respective current places of work without repatriating them till 30.06.2017 on the pretext that the permitted period of deputation is completed.”

¶42

The said paragraph has to be understood in the context of the earlier notifications of APSRTC, dated 27.05.2015 and 22.08.2015. It has to be understood that the intention of the Corporation is to continue deputations till 30.06.2017, obviously with the hope that by that time at least the issues between the two Corporations would be resolved.

¶43

A combined reading of these three notifications, it cannot be inferred that the intention of APSRTC has changed from its earlier decision and it now intends to confine the continuation of deputation only to persons appointed in Andhra Pradesh State, but are working on deputation in a zone other than their parent zone. If that is the intention, the Corporate office would have made it clear. More particularly, the issue with regard to who belongs to which State Corporation is yet to be finalized as the cadre bifurcation between the two Corporations is not even initiated. Per se, merely because a person is recruited in a particular zone, when it was a combined Corporation for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh before its bifurcation cannot be the basis to determine that person’s unit of appointment for the purpose of continuation on deputation unless the guidelines are formulated finally and the issue of bifurcation of two Corporations is resolved finally and two separate cadres for two Corporations come into existence. Thus, merely because originally the petitioners were appointed in Greater Hyderabad Zone, which is now forming part of the State of Telangana, cannot be a ground to treat them differently than the persons working in different zones other than the zones of their unit of appointment forming part of residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, at this stage.”

¶44

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners herein, who were appointed in different regions of State of Telangana, cannot be a ground to treat them differently than the persons working in different zones other than

¶45

ARR,J

¶46

¶47

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶48

the zones of their unit of appointment forming part of residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, which is also affirmed in the aforesaid Judgment. The guidelines are to be formulated finally and the issue of bifurcation of two corporations is to be resolved finally, then only two Corporations for separate States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, come into existence.

¶49

Obviously, because of this reason, the Telangana State Road Transportation Corporation issued proceedings No.CG2/196(63)/2017-PO (TSW), dated 08.08.2017, retaining the APSRTC employees on deputation in TSRTC for a period of one year. Even, the APSRTC also issued proceedings dated 08.06.2017 permitting the staff of four zones of APSRTC temporarily transferred and working on deputation basis in other units falling within four zones i.e., VZM, VJA, NLR & KDP, shall be allowed to continue at their respective current places of work without repatriating them till 30.06.2018. As such, though the petitioners were appointed in the regions now forming part of TSRTC, now working on deputation in different regions of APSRTC, cannot be discriminated with the employees working in APSRTC on deputation from different zones in APSRTC. As already observed supra, the impugned proceedings have been issued selectively, without any basis. More so, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no bifurcation of cadre strength of employees between two Corporations, as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that ground alone.

¶50

ARR,J

¶51

¶52

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶53

Though it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders of transfer have been issued by the Depot Manager, as such, same are liable to be set aside. But it is pertinent to note that the Depot Manager has issued the impugned proceedings, basing on the instructions of the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director of APSRTC vide proceedings dated 08.06.2017. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶54

In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned proceedings issued by the Depot Managers in all the petitioners are set aside.

¶55

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand disposed of.

¶56

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

10.11.2017 kvs

ARR,J

WPs_25880_2017 &batch

¶61

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶62