Allowed

G. Naveen Babu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 Others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2021WP/3403/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Last Grade employees of the erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, local to Telangana, challenged their final allocation to Andhra Pradesh. The High Court held the issue squarely covered by its order in W.P.Nos.37396 of 2017 and 18559 of 2020, set aside the allocation and directed their allocation to the State of Telangana.

What did the court decide?

Final allocation of the petitioners to the State of Andhra Pradesh set aside; petitioners held entitled to allocation to Telangana; respondents to relieve them within two weeks and Telangana to give p

G. Naveen Babu and Another Vs State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶5

THE HoN,BLE snrurflr?ce T. VINoD KuMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 3403 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 G. Naveen Babu, S/o Venkataramana, Aged about 40years, Driver, (erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. RyoH.Nol-2-365/15, Dom;l Guda, Gaganmahal, Himayath Nagar Hyderabad.

¶9

2 T.Mukesh Kumar, S/o T. Bikshapathi, Aged about 38 years, Driver, (erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad), Ryo3-5-948/28lA, candhi Kutter, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

S-tate oJ Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (SR-l) Department, A.P: Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, (A.p.), 522503.

¶13

State_of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Dep'artment, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, cuntur District, (A.P.), 522503.

¶14

J. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (SPF-MC) Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad-500004.

¶16

q The Member Secretary to Advisory Committee, Andhra Pradesh Re-organization, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

o. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, Loknaik Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioners who are working in the Last Grade Service are entitled to have their claims considered and be allotted/re-allotted to State of Telangana in^.accordance with Guideline No. 18 (j) of the Guidelines communicated by the Government of lndia in F. No. 27l13/2013-SRS dated 2911012014 Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training duly taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioners are workirrg in Last Grade Service and that their local candidature is relatable to State of Telangana with benefits incidental thereto by reconsidering their allocation to State of Andhra Pradesh vide F. No. A-1101411012014-AT @art-\ dated 04110120'17 and G.O. Ms. No.^'133 General Administration (SR-l) Department dated 04110t2017 issued by the 6th and 1St Respondents in the interest of justice duly holding the action of the Respondents in allocating the Petitioners to State of A.P. vide impugned vide F. No. A-1101411012014-AT @an-) dated 0411012017 and G.O. Ms. No. 133 General Adminrstration (SR-l) Department dated 04/1012012 issued by the 6th and i st Respondents and not considering their claim for allotment/re-allotment to State of

¶20

Telangana, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to Guideline No. 1B^(j) and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the request of the Petitioners by^passing on the orders on representations dated 1 9/08/2019 and 171081201 9, keeping in view Guideline No. 1 8 (j) of the Guidelines communicated by the Government of lndia in F. No. 2711312013SRS dated 2911012014 Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI P. GOVIND REDDY (SPECTAL G.P. FOR A.P)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SERVIECS - lll

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: GP FOR SERVICES - |

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: NONE APPEARED

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶31

AND

¶32

HONOURABLB SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.34O3 OF 2021

¶34

OITDER:

¶35

iPcr^Sri Justice M.S-Ronochandra Rao.)

¶36

It is stated by learned counsel for the petirioners, leamed Special Government Pleader lor the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondents I and 2, leamed Govemrnent Pleader for Services-lll appearing for the 3'd respondent and learned Govemment Pleader for services-l appearing for the 4'h respondent that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dt.22.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.37396 of 2017 and 18559 of 2020.

¶37

Accordingly,

¶38

(a) Writ Petition No.3403 of 2021 is allowed;

¶39

(b) the final allocation of the petitioners made vide Order No. 1 of 201 7 dt.04.10 .2017 by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India in F.No.A-11014 / l0 I 2014 - AT (Part 2) to the State of Andhra Pradesh is ser aside, and the petitioners are held entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana in view of Clause 18(l) of the Guidelines framed by the Government of India; and

¶40

(c) the respondents shall take all necessary steps to relieve the petitioners frorn their current employment / place of work in the

¶41

State of Andhra^pradesh within two (02) weeks from the date of

¶42

receipt of a copy of the order and allocate them to the State of Telangana which State shall given appropriate posting orders to the petitioners in the departments of the said State within four (04) weeks thereafter. No cosrs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SDi. T, TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N-" SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

The Principal Secretary, General Administration (SR-l) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, (A.P.), 522503.

¶49

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, (A.P.), 522503.

¶50

The Principal Secretary, General Administration (SPF-MC) Department, State of Telangana, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad-500004.

¶52

The Member Secretary to Advisory Committee, Andhra Pradesh Re-organization, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶53

The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, Union of lndia, Loknaik Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶54

One CC to Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri P. Govind Reddy, Special Government PleaderfoiA.p., tOpUCl 9. Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana ai Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

1 0. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

'1 1.Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶57

12.1wo CCs to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶58

1. One CC to Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, Assistant Solicitor General [OPUC] (Along with a copy of order dated 22.01.2021 in W.P.Nos.37396 of 2017 and 18559 of 2020.)

¶59

14.Two CD Copies '15. One Spare Copy CHR \ \zAf-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712021

ORDER

W.P.No.3403 of 2021

t\ c 5 r,q fi:
(
q
vt'
Jou 1 4 JUL 2021
.!l
u
,) PATc
{{

¶65

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

¶67

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶68

AND

¶69

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶70

WRIT PETITION Nos.37396 of 2017 and 18559 of 2020

¶71

COMMON ORDER: (pu Hon'ble SriJustice M.S. Rant(rc.horutrct Rao)

¶72

In both these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by their final allocation to the State of Andhra pradesh vrde Order No. I of 2017 in FA No.A-l t}t4lt0l20t4-AT(part-2), dt.04.10.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Union of India (1., respondent in W.P.No.37396 of 2017 and 6th respondent in W.p.No.lg559 of 2020) and G.O.Ms.No. 133, General Administration (SR-I) Department, dt.04.10.2017 issued by the Govemment of Andhra pradesh directing publication of the said Order No. I of 2017 under the provisions of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. They seek to set aside the same and also seek a direction to the respondents to redo the exercise and allot the petitioners to.the State of Telangana by following Clause l gO and l8(l) of the Guidelines framed by the Union of India in proceedings F.No.27l13l20l3-SRS, dr.29.10.20t4 published vide G.O.Ms.3l2, General Administration (SR) Department, dt.30. 10.2014.

¶73

The erstwhile composite State of Andhra pradesh had been bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of

¶74

1 MSR.J & TA.J wp_3'l)96'2011 & wp_18559_2020

¶75

Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014^{under the A.P.ReorganisationAct,} 2014^(for short "the Act").

¶76

The A.P. Administrative Tribunal^{is mentionedat Serial No.l41} in Schedule X to the A.P. Reorganisation^{Act, 2014.}

¶77

The Department of Personnel^{and Training, Ministryof} Personnel, PG & Pensions of^{the Govemment of India had issued} Proceedings F .N o.27^{I | 3} I^{201 3 -SRS, dt.2g.lO.2O1 4 frami ng Guideli nes} for allocation of State Government^{employees underthe said Actand} the Govemment of Andhra^{Pradeshhad communicatedthe samevide} G.O.Ms.312, General Administration^{(SR)Department,} dt.30.10.2014.

¶78

A Notification No.19326-AISR/2016^{dt.13.07.2017was issued} by the Govemment of Andhra^{Pradesh through its General} Administration (SR) Department^{dt.13.07.2017stating emphatically} that the Guidelines as approved^{by the Government of lndia vide lheir} reference No.F.No.27ll 3/20^I 3-SRS^{dt.29.10.2014 and published by} the Government of Andhra^{Pradeshvide G.O'Ms.312,General} Administration^(SR) Department,^{d1.30.10.2014, would apply for the} final allocation of the employees of^{the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.}

¶79

The Government of^{India through GazetteNo.650} d1.15.09.2016 notified that the A.P.^{AdministrativeTribunal shall} cease to have^jurisdiction over the State^{of Telanganawitheffect from} 15.09.2016 and the cases^pending in the^{said Tribunal were}

¶80

MSK,J d' Il,J wp_31396201? & wp_18559,2020

¶81

¶82

transl-erred to the High Court^{at Hyderabadfor the State of Telangana} and the State of A.P. through^{a letterdt.01. 10.201 6.}

¶83

Thereafter, the Government of^{AndhraPradesh also abolished} the A.P. Administrative^{Tribunal, and on 14.01.2020, the said} abolition was^gazetted by^{the Union of India vide Notification} No.GSR 30 (E) dt.14.01.2020^{which was later amendedvide} Notification No.886 A^dt.27 '02.2020^{and was published vide} G.O.Ms.No.24 General^{Administration(SPF & MC) Department} d1.09.03.2020 issued^{by the Governmentof AndhraPradesh.}

¶84

The fact in W.P.No.37396 of²⁰¹⁷

¶85

The petitioner in W.P.No.37396^{of 2017 was appointed as a} Court Master in the A.P.^{AdministrativeTribunal in 2012.The} husband of the^{petitionerin W.P.No'37396of 2017 is employedin the} Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal,^{Hyderabad and she has two children} who are minors. The Andhra^{Pradesh Wakf Tribunal,Hyderabad} where the husband of the petitioner^is employed^{is alsomentioned at} Serial No.l34 of the X^{Schedule.The said petitioner had sought} allotment to the State of Telangana^{to which she wasa local candidate} relying on Guideline No.18(l) of the^{Guidelinesframedby the Union} of India contained in G.O.Ms.No.3l2,^{Generat Administration(SR)} Department, dt.30.10.2014 issued by the^{Governmentof Andhra} Pradesh.

¶86

The said Guideline states:

¶87

::4:: MSR.J & TA.J wp_37396-20t7 & wp t8559 2020

¶88

"l) Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Government institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be alloued ro the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a Smre shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options. "

¶89

However, in the tentative allocation list notified vide Notification No. 19326-415N2Ol6, dt.06.09.2017 issued by the General Administration (SR) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, she was tentatively allocated to the State of A.P. though she had opted for the State of Telangana; and though she filed objections thereto on 19.09.2017 and prayed for final allocation to the State of Telangana, vrde Order No.l of 2017 issued in F.No.A-1 t}t4ltOt2Ol4-AT (part_2) d1.04.10.2017 she was allocated to the State of Andhra pradesh agarn.

¶90

This is questioned by her in W.p.No.373 96 of 2017.

¶91

The facts in W.P.No.18559 of 2020

¶92

In W.P.No.l8559 of 2020, all the petitioners are appointed in the Last Grade service in posts such as Attender/office Subordinate in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal prior to 02.06.2014. They possess the local status ofrelangana state. on the ground that they belong to BC, SC and ST communities and that they are in Class_lV/Last Grade, by placing reliance on Guideline No. I gfi) of the Guidelines framed by

¶93

MSR,J & IA,J wp 37396_201 7 & wp_18559_2020

¶94

¶95

the Union of India referred^{to above, theyhad given their option for} allocation to the State^ofTelangana.

¶96

The said Guideline states:

¶97

" ) 8Q)-Last grade employees and Light Vehicle Drivers^{shallbe allocated} on the basis of option^{or local candidature'as} far^{as possible. Vacant} posts and posls created subsequent to^{the appointedday in these} categories will^{be reckoned,if so desiredby the concernedState,} for^the purposes offinal allotment for^{theseemployees. "}

¶98

However, all of them were finally^{allocated to the Stateof} Andhra Pradesh vide Order^{No.l/2017 in FA No.A-1101411012014'} AT(Pan-2), dt.04.10.2017^{issuedby the Departmentof Personnel and} Training, Ministry of Personnel,^{Public Grievancesand Pensions,} Union of India^{whichwas published videG.O.Ms.No. 133, General} Administration (SR-l) Department,^{dt'04'10.2017 issued by the} Government of Andhra^Pradesh.

¶99

This is challenged by them in^{W.P.No.I 85 59 of 2020.}

¶100

The stand of State of A

¶101

As regards the^{petitionerin W.P.No.37396of 2017, it is the} contention of the State of A.P. that^{in the cadre of Court Master there} are 20 posts out ofwhich^{8 posts were allocatedto Telanganaand12} posts were allocated to the State of Andhra^{Pradeshas per the ratio of} population between the States ofTelangana^{and AndhraPradesh;that} petitioner stands last in the seniority^{list at SerialNo.20 in the cadre;} that l0 of her seniors,^{whowere local to Telangana, had optedfor} Telangana against the 8^posts allotted^{to Telangana;so 8 of her}

¶102

MSR.J & TA,J wp_37396_2017 & wp_18559,2020

¶103

¶104

seniors were adjusted to Telangana and the other 2 seniors were allotted to Andhra Pradesh as there were no posts in Telangana. It is contended that petitioner was the last in the seniority list in the cadre of Court Masters and she cannot be granted allocation to the State of Telangana since there were no posts.

¶105

According to the Government of A.P., the Guidelines framed by the Union of India would apply.

¶106

In particular, the Special Government pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh laid emphasis on Clause 18(f) of the said Guidelines which states:

¶107

"f1 The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are 'local candidates, relatable to the State to which they have opted, shalt, in order of their seniority, be considered for allocation first. If a ocable posts in that category remain, then, others who have opted lo the State may be allocated in order ofseniority. If still posts remain allocation will be made tn reverse order ofseniority. "

¶108

According to him, in view of the low position of the petitioner in W.P.No.37396 of 2017 in the seniority list in the cadre of Court Master, she was rightly allocated to the State of Andhra pradesh notwithstanding her option for allocation to the State of Telangana because 8 of the persons senior to her are local candidates of the State of Telangana, and they had been rightly allocated to the State of Telangana in the 8 posts allotted to the said State in the bifurcation.

¶109

Coming to the claim of the petitioners in W.p.No.lg559 of 2020, it is his contention that the cadre strength in the category of

¶110

wp_37396_2017 & wp_1855S,2020

¶111

Office Subordinates notified^{was 37; that 36 were filled and I was} vacant as on 02.06.2014;^{out ofthese posts,21 filled and I vacant post} was allotted to the State of^{A.P. and the remainingI 5 filled posts were} allotted to the Telangana^{State.It is contended that of the 36 allocable} employees, 28^{were local to Telangana Stateand 6 were local to} Andhra Pradesh and the^{remaining 2 werenon-locals to both States.}

¶112

It is contended that among^{the 28 locals to TelanganaStale,27} opted to the State ofTelangana^{and the other did not exerciseoption;} out of the said 27 local^{optees to TelanganaState, 6 claimed} preferential allotment to Telangana^{State being widowed female} employees under Para 18(m) of^{the Guidelines; these6 preferential} claims were considered^{first,and then 9 localopteesto Telangana} State who were seniors to^{the petitioners had been consideredfor} allocation tentatively to^{Telangana State as per their option with} reference to their seniority against^{the l5 posts allocatedto Telangana} State. It is contended^{that as there were no more postsavailableand} there were excess options^{for TelanganaState, petitioners could not be} considered for tentative^{allotment to TelanganaState as per their} option; and they were^{therefore considered for allotment to State of} A.P. in the reverse order of^{seniority under Para l8(f) of the} Guidelines.

¶113

In regard to Para l8O ofthe^{Guidelines, it is contended that the} said Para is only an indicative^{guidelineand is not mandatory and that} allocation of Last Grade^{employees was made keeping in view the}

¶114

MS&J & TA,J wp 37396_20t7 & wp_I8559 2020

¶115

¶116

provision contained in Para 18O to the extent possible. It is further contended that one cannot claim allocation as per Para l8O as of a right and it is left to the authority concerned to decide and consider keeping in view other aspects, such as seniority, etc. It is also contended that there are totally (635) Last Grade Sen,ice employees in all the Departments put together who are local optees to Telangana State, but they could not be considered for allocation to Telangana State as per their option; and that they were considered for allotment to Andhra Pradesh State against their options under Para l8(0 of the guidelines due to non-availability of posts in Telangana State for their adj ustment.

¶117

Thc stan of the State of Telangana :

¶118

ll. In regard to the petitioner in WP.No.3'7396 of 2017, it is admitted that the petitioner had opted for the State of Telangana vide option form submitted on 24.07.2017, but it is contended that since the petitioner was junior most and there were no vacancies available to accommodate the petitioner in the State of Telangana, in accordance with para l8(f) of the Guidelines framed by the Union of India, she was allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further stated that the petitioner's spouse is working in the A.p. Waqf Tribunal at Hyderabad but the employees of the said institution have not been allocated as yet.

¶119

As regards the petitioners in WP.No.18559 ot2020, it is stated that the Govemment of India through Gazette No.650 dt.15.09.2016

¶120

i:>ii

¶121

w_31396^20t7& wp_18559_2020

¶122

notified that the A.P.^{Administrative Tribunal shallcease to have} jurisdiction over the State of Telangana with effect^{from 15.09.2016} and the cases^{pending in the said Tribunalweretransferredto the} High Court at Hyderabad^{for the State of Telangana and the State of} A.P. through a letter d1.01.10.2016.^{It is further stated that the} Chairman, A.P. Administrative^{Tribunal, relieved71 employeesof the} Tribunal, who were allocated^{to the State of Telangana with a} direction to report to^{the Govemment of Telangana on 01.11.2017and} accordingly, they submitted^{joining report before the Governmentof} Telangana; that on the request^{ofthe Registrar General, High Court of} Judicature at Hyderabad,^{the Governmentof Telanganahad deputed} all the 7 1 employees of the^{Tribunal who are allocatedto the} Telangana State to the said^{High Court till further ordersvide} G.O.Rt.No.2291, GA(SPF)^{Departmentdt.02.11.2017and} G.O.Rt.No.2343, GA(SPF)^{Departmentdt.10.1 1.2017.}

¶123

Thus, the State ofTeiangana supported^{the standoftheState of} A.P. in regard to the allocation^{of the petitioners to the State of A'P.in} spite of the fact that the^{petitioners had all opted for the State of} Telangana under clause^{18O and 18(l) of the Guidelines framed by} the Union of India.

¶124

The stand of the Union of^India:

¶125

It is the contention of the^{Union of India that its role in issuing} the final allocation order^{d1.04.10.2017 is onlysecondary and that it} was issued only after receipt^{of proposal of the Govemments of both}

¶126

MSR.J & TA,J : : 10:: wp_37396-0t1 & wp_18559_2020

¶127

States in this regard,^{afterduly considering the representationsof all} the employees.

¶128

It is stated that since^{the Tribunalis listed in Schedule-Xofthe} Act, the exercise of allocation of^{staff has to be carried out by the} Tribunal only in terms^{of Section 82 of the Actand that the Union of} India intervened in view of^{the directiongivenby the High Court in} W.P.No.36777 of 2016^{and called a meetingwith the Officers of both} the State Governments to^{advisethem to initiateaction for allocation} of staff of the Tribunal as^{per the principles indicated by the} Kamalanathan Committee.

¶129

It is stated that the representation of^{the petitioner in} WP.No.37396 of 2017 for^{allocation to the State of Telangana was} rejected on the basis of^{comments fumished by the General} Administration^(State Reorganization)^{Departmentwhich stated that} spouses working in the A.P, Waqf^{Tribunal are not eligible for} preferential allocation as per the Guidelines^{in Circular Memo} No.19184/SR-11A112014-17 dt.25.02.2015^{issued by the General} Adrninistration Department of both States^{and that the Committee had} also stated that she is^{junior in the cadre and excessoptions had been} exercised for Teiangana State.

¶130

As regards the petitioners in WP.No.18559^{of 2020, it is stated} that the Committee had^rej ected request^{of the petitioners thereinfor} allocation to the State of Telangana on the^basis of^{the following}

¶131

::ll::

¶132

w_37396-2011^& wp_18559_2020

¶133

comments of the^{General Administration(State Reorganization)} Department:

¶134

"There are 15 posrs in TS.^{10 employeeswhoare senior to him,} local to TS have opred^{tots andallotted to TS. ln 5 cases the} employees whoa^{re local to TS and opted to TS on preferenlial} ground that thev lost lheir^{spouses and allottedto TSThereare} no posls lo consider^hisrequest.

¶135

1'he mmittea in i recomme ndalions sta^{ted the follo 14)lng:}

¶136

"Rejected/No action required. Junior^{in the cadre andexcess} option for TS.^{" "}

¶137

Consideration bvtheC^{ou rt:}

¶138

From the facts^{narratedabove, itis clear that the AP} Administrative Tribunal^{was located at Hyderabadas on 02.06.2014,} the date on which the composite^{State of Andhra Pradeshwas} bifurcated into the^{newState ofTelanganaand the residuary Stateof} Andhra Pradesh^pursuant to^{the A.P.ReorganizationAct, 2014.}

¶139

14, A WP.No.36777 of^{2016 had been filed by one K.S.Srinivas in} the High Court at Hyderabad^{fortheState of Telangana and the State} of Andhra Pradesh with^{regard to allocation of officersand employees} of the said Tribunal.

¶140

On 27.12.2016, the High^{Court had disposed of the Writ} Petition by directing the Govemment of^{India to allocate the officers} and staff of the A.P. Administrative^{Tribunalin the ratio 58.32:41.68} in terms of section 2(h) of the Act between^{the Stateof A.P. and the} State ofTelangana.

¶141

MS&J & TAJ *p )1396]017 & wp_18559_2020

¶142

rl2'!l

¶143

The Secretary,^{DepartmentofPersonneland Training,} Govemment of^{India held a meetingwith representatives} ' of both Governments on07.o4.2Ol7^{at New Delhiand requestedthem to start} the process of^{allocationas per the Kamalanathan Committee's} Guidelines, which^{are followed for the allocation of State Cadre} elnployees between^{both States.}

¶144

17, Thereafter, Notification^{No.19326-A/SR/2016dt'13'07'2017} was issued by the Govemment^{of AndhraPradesh through its General} Administration^{(SR) Department dt.13.07.2017stating emphatically} that the Guidelines^{as approvedby the Govemment of India vide lheir} reference No.F.No.27l^{I 3/201 3-SRSdt.29.10.2014 and published by} the Government of^{Andhra Pradeshvide G.O.Ms'312,General} Administration^{(SR) Department, dt'30'10.2014,would apply for the} final allocation of the^{employeesof the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.}

¶145

The A.P. Administrative^{Tribunal is a legalentityspecified in} Schedule-X to the^Act.

¶146

Therefore. the Union of^{India admittedly has only the role of} making final allocation^{as per the proposals of the Governments of} both States in this^{regard, afterduly considering the representations of} all the employees.^{The exercise of allocationofstaffhas to be carried} out by the Tribunal^{only in terms of Section82 of the Act'}

¶147

The petitioner^{in W.P.37396of 2017 had sought allocationas} per option from dt.24.07 -2011^{to the State of Telangana as she was}

¶148

MSB"J & l A,J wp_3?396_2017 & wp_18559_2020

¶149

:: l3::

¶150

having nativity of the State of Telangana, and was working as Court Master in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, and her husband Sk.Shameemuddien was employed in the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is also a Schedule-X Institution. She had relied on clause l8(l) of the Guidetines framed by the Union of India.

¶151

Likewise, the petitioners in WP.No.18559 of 2020 had contended that they were appointed as Last Grade/Class IV employees in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, that they were having nativity ofthe State ofTelangana, and as per clause l8(j) of the Guidelines they should be allocated to the State ofTelangana.

¶152

However, by applying clause 18(f) of the Guidelines, the Union of lndia, on the recommendations of both the State Govemments, allocated them finally under the impugned order No. l/2017 in F.No.A-l10l4ll0l20l4-AT(part-II) dt.04.10.2017 notified vide C.O.Ms.No.l33 General Administration (SR.I) Department dt.04. I 0.201 7.

¶153

It is the stand of all the respondents that seniors to the petitioners had chosen to opt for the State of Telangana and consequently the available allocated posts to the said State had been filled up by such persons, that there were no other vacancies wherein the petitioners could be accommodated, and so by applying the principle of reverse order of seniority in clause 18(f1, they were allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶154

MSR,J &'I'A,J wp 31396_2011 & wp_r 85s9-2020

¶155

: :14: :

¶156

We shall once again extract clauses^18(f1, O &^{(l) of the} guidelines framed by the Union of India^{publishedin G.O.Ms.No.3l2} General Administration^(SR) Department^{dt.30. 10.20I 4.}

¶157

"18(fi- The allocation shall be done in order of seniori.r* as available on June 01, 2014. Those^{who have opted,who are 'local candidates'} relatable to the State to which they^{have opted, shall, in order of their} seniority, be considered for^allocation frst.^{If allocable postsin that} category remain, then, others who^have opted^{to the Sldtemaybe} allocated in order of seniority. If still^{postsremainallocationwill be} made in reverse order of seniority.

¶158

18(j)-Last grade employees and Light Vehicle Drivers^{shall be} AS allocated on the basis of option or local^candidature, possible. l/acant posts and posts created subsequent to the appointed day in these categories will be reckoned, if^{so desired bythe} concerned State, for lhe purposes of final allotment for^these employees.

¶159

I8(l)- Spouses in State cadre in Government or in^{SlateGovernment} institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocaled^{as per} the Act, shall as far as^practicable, be alloued^{to the sameState, atier} considering oplions made by them and their local^candidature. Spouses who are local candidates ofa State shall^be allocated^{to that} State. Spouses who belong to different^{Statesmay be allocated qfter} considering their options.^"

¶160

25, The petitioners contend that clauses^18(l) &^{18(l) are in the} nature of exceptions to clause 18(f) because^{they deal with vulnerable} categories such as spouses and^{Class-lV/Last Grade employees,who} require special consideration and^{that ifonly clause18(f) is applied,} then there would be no situation^{where clauses lS(i) and l8(l), and} similar clauses like I 8(e) and¹ 8(i),^{canbe applied.}

¶161

MSR,J & TA,J wp_37396_2017 & wp_18559_2020

¶162

: :15: :

¶163

They also point out that the words^{"as far} as^{practicable"/ "as} far as possible", if they are^preceded by^{the word "sha11", it implies} that the respondents should^give effect^{to the preferential allotmentto} spouses/Class-IV employees^{as per} their option,^{unlessit is impossible} to do so.

¶164

They place reliance on the decisions of^{the Division Bench of} this Court in Osmania University v.^{V.S.Muthurangam & Ors.r} which was affirmed by the Supreme Courtⁱⁿ Osmania Universify^v. V.S.Muthurangam & Ors2.

¶165

They contend that in Dr. S. Shobha Rani v.^State Reorganization Department3 and Uzma-Nikhath^{v. Government} of Indiaa and P.Rajyalakshmi v. Union^of Indiat^{it was held that the} basic principle underlying the^{guidelines framedby the Govemment} of India for allocation of staff between the two^{States is} to^keep employed spouses together who would otherwise^{be separatedowing} to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of^the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh; keeping the spirit^{and intent} underlying this principle, the Guidelines should be implemented;^and that the import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile^State of Andhra Pradesh is not to breakup marriages.

¶166

'^{MANU/AP/0397/1989= r989(5)sLR 4l t(DB)}

¶167

'?^{reerlr o1 scc z+r}

¶168

t Ordet dt.2'1.02.2017 in WP.No.237?5 of 2016 (DB) = 201? (3) A.L.D.207 (D.B.)

¶169

4 order dt.28.01.2019 in WP(TR) No.5680 of 2017(DB)

¶170

5 Order dt.06.02.2019 in WP.No.42628 of 2017 (DB)

¶171

::16::

¶172

N,,lSR,J & TA.J w^{31396 2017} & wp_t8559_2020

¶173

They further contend that Last Grade employees have also been singled out in clause 18(i) for preferentiar treatment in order not to cause inconvenience to them keeping in mind the difficulties which an allocation to a different State would visit such employees, who on their meager salary, would have to support some members of the family in the State of Telangana, when allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶174

We find considerable force in the above submissions of the counsel for the petitioners.

¶175

According to Clause 18(f) of the Guidelines framed by the Government of India, allocation has to be done in the order of seniority as available on 01.06.2014 and those who have opted, who are 'local candidates' relatable to the State to which they have opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be considered for allocation first. If allocable posts in that category remain, then, others who have opted to the State may be allocated in order of seniority. If stilr posts remain allocation will be made in the reverse order of seniority.

¶176

Thus, ifthe above principle is given overriding effect over other clauses contained in the guidelines, allocation would only be made according to the options of the seniors in a particular category if they are local candidates relatable to the state to which they have opted. Therefore, seniors in a parlicular category would get the State of their choice if they are local candidates reratable to the said State and would fill up all allocable posts available in that particular State.

¶177

wp_r /Jru_.u '^{/ B} wp_18559,2020

¶178

Consequently,^{the juniors in a particular category will not be allotted} tothestateoftheirchoiceeveniftheyarelocalcandidatesrelatable to the said State^{and even if theyclaim preferential allotmentinvoking} Clauses t8(i),^{(k), (l) and (m) becausein every case the 'principle of} seniority'^{would override these clauses'}

¶179

Even clauses^{l8(k) (which provides that spouse ofan All India} Service Officer^{who belongsto a State Cadreor is an employeeof the} State Government^{Institutions shall be allocated,where so desired by} the spouse, to^{the State to which the A1l India Service Officeris} atlocated)^{and clause 18(m) (whichdeal with cases of widowed} female employees,^{handicappedpersons with more than 60%} disability, and^{employees/their spousesor childrenfacingserious} medical hardship,^{to be allocated on priority on the basis of option)} fall in the same^{categoryas clause 18(i)and 18(l)'}

¶180

Therefore,^{Clause 18(f) cannotbe given overriding effect over} Clauses 180),^{(k), (l) and (m) of the guidelines'}

¶181

In our^{opinion, Clauses18(i), (k), (l) and (m) of the guidelines} ought to be^{treated as exceptions to Clause18(f) because otherwise} they would^{be practically rendered otiose and defeat the verypurpose} for which they^{were includedin the guidelines' i'e'' to allow} vulnerable sections^{of employeessuch as spousesof Government} employees, last^{Grade employees,widowed femaleemployees'} handicapped^{persons and personsfacingseriousmedical hardship to} be given^{priority in allocationto the State of theirchoice'}

¶182

:: l8:: MSR.J & TA.J "p_37396 201? & wp_t8559_2020

¶183

We shall presently also point out that judicial precedents have interpreted the term "shall as far as practicable,' and^,,shall as far as possible" in a provision of law to mean that unless impossible, the benefit in the said provision of law cannot be denied.

¶184

In clause 180), it is stated thatLast Grade employees and light vehicle drivers shall be allocated on the basis of option or local candidature, ar as ible.

¶185

In clause 18(l), it is stated that spouses in State Cadre in Goyernment or in State Government Institutions, Local Bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the Act, shall or as racticct le be allotted to the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature.

¶186

In Osmania University ( I supra), the question was whether non-teaching staff working in the University were liable to be retired at the age of 58 or 60 years. Section 3g of the Osmania University Act,l959 stated that every salaried officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed under a written contract, and the conditions of service relating to them, shall as far as possible, be unifo.n except in respect of salaries payable to them. The Court held that nonteaching staff had been appointed in the University only under the said provision of law, and the word^,salaried officer, means every officer who receives salary from the University and covers the non-teaching staff as well. It accepted the contentions of the non_ teaching staff that the words 'as far as possible' were preceded by the

¶187

:: l9:: lvt) K,J 6a I /t,J w_3't396-20l',l^& wp_t 8559_2020

¶188

word 'shall' which means lhat the service conditions^{shall be the same} except when it is impossible,' and it is for the University to^explainthe circumstances, which made it impossible, to^{prescribe uniform} conditions of service. It held that even if the duties^{performedby the} teaching and non-teaching staff are different,^{the said factor is not} relevant and cannot afford a reason to deviate^{fromthe uniform poticy} contemplated by Section 38 of the Act;^that if^{fixation of age} of a superannuation of teachers at 60^{years was} done^pursuantto recommendation of the University Grants Commission, the^non- teaching staffshould also be extended the said benefit and be allowed to retire at the age of 60. It observed that no discrimination^shouldbe shown to them and unless there is a reasonable^{classification,Article} l4 would be violated.

¶189

This decision was affirmed in Osmania University^{(2 supra)} by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court^{held that the University} will be^justified within the ambit of Section 38 (i) to^introduce different conditions of service for different^{categoriesof employees if} such different conditions become necessaly for the^{exigency of} administration and if it is otherwise impracticable^{to bring uniformity} in the conditions of service of different categories of employees.^For the same reason, it is permissible for the University^{to introducethe} age of superannuation differently for different^categoriesof employees, ifintroduction ofsuch different age of superannuation^can be^justified on the anvil of felt need of the^{administration.But if}

¶190

: :20:: MSR,J & TA,J wp 37396 2017 & wp-18559_2020

¶191

Untform conditions of service for teaching and non-teaching staff of the University is not otherwise impracticable, the [Jniversity is under an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of the mandate of Section 38(l) of the Act. It held that in the said case it did not find that it is not at all practicable for the IJniversity to maintain the clarity in the age of superannuation of both teaching and nonteaching staff.

¶192

In our opinion, the words 'as far as possible' occurring in Clause l8O and the words'as far as practicable'occurring in Clause I 8(l) of the guidelines ought to be similarly interpreted and the benefit thereunder cannot be routinely denied quoting Clause l8(f) when it is possible (and not impossible/impracticable) to give benefit of the said Clauses to junior employees by treating Clauses l8O and 18(l) as exceptions to Clause l8(f). It cannot be said that lack of vacant allocable posts is a reason to deny the benefit of Clauses l8O and 18(l) when such allocable posts are all filled up applying Clause l8(f).

¶193

In relation to 'spouse category' cases, a Division Bench of this Court in case of Poranki Rajyatakshmi (5 supra), who was also a Court Master in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad and who was denied allocation to the State of Telangana even though her spouse was also employed in an A.P. Model School and had been allotted to Telangana after bifurcation, held that the respondents cannot take a hypertechnical view of the matter in considering the guidelines issued for preferential allocation in cases of spouses since

¶194

iizlii

¶195

MSR,J & TA,J u,p_37196_2017 & wp 18559 2020

¶196

¶197

the object is to ensure that the spouses should be together. It held that the plea of the respondents that the husband of petitioner therein was not a Government servant and so she cannot be granted allocation to the State where her husband is employed, cannot be countenanced since the Model Schools were also run and funded bv the State Govemment. Admittedly, this order had been implemented and she was allocated to the State of Telangana on account of the order passed in the said Writ Petition.

¶198

In Dr. S. Shoba Rani (3 supra), a Division Bench of this Court

¶199

interpreted Clause 18(l) as under :

¶200

"8. The bqsic principle underlyirts these suidelines is therefore to

¶201

Dtotect a d keep togatlrcr cmDloyed sDouses who tgoukl olhcrwisc be seporsted ob,irtg to the allocaliotr rurdertqka^pursuant to tlrc bifurcation of the erstwhile Stale of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping the spirit antl intent underlying this principle, the gridelines should be implemented. Merely because Clouse (l) does not speak of employees working in Central Governmenl Public Sector Undertakings, it does not mean that spouses of such employees, who are working in the State cadre, are nol lo be accommotlaletl where lhey are working. Clause⁽¹⁾ stales in no uncertain lernrs lhat allocalion shall, as far as^practictble, be made so as to keep tlte spouses together. Tlrc inport^qnd ir ent of hifirrcqtiou of the ersb+lrilc Stme ol-Atrtllra Pradesh is not to breok up marriages. Tlrc autltorities lherefore haye lo conceive, fon ulate and implemant the euidelines keepins this in mind. Any shortfall in the euideli es in this resard cdnnot be taken litcrallv to r eon lltot soottscs. t'ltose cuses do not fal,I within the four corners of lhc i,tslntctio,ts us set out thcrein, sre lo be left out i,t tlrc cold^qnd ,fitrst sulli'r norital vDuretion.^"( en4tlu.;i.s stqtltlicd)

¶202

..)'r.. MSR,J & TA,J wp 37396_2017 & wp 18559_2020

¶203

The above principle was applied in P. Damodhar vs. T.S. Industrial Development Corporation6, and it was held that the basic principle underlying the guidelines framed by the Government of India is to protect and keep together employed spouses who would otherwise be separated owing to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶204

Coming to petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18559 of 2020, admittedly they are employees in the last Grade service of the A.p. Administrative Tribunal. Their pay and emoluments would not be much and it would cause grave hardship to them and to their families if they are allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh because they would not have the financial capacity to move with their families to the State of Andhra Pradesh, and it would be difficult for them also to maintain their families in the State of Telangana while also taking care of their needs in the State of Andhra Pradesh where they would get allocated. That was why preferential allotment was contemplated and provided for this vulnerable section in Clause l8O of the Guidelines.

¶205

In fact, the Administrative Tribunal has ceased to be in existence in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana; and employees of the Administrative Tribunal allocated to the State of Telangana, have admittedly been made over initially to the High Court for the State of Telangana, but later by a Resolution

¶206

6 zo2o 1a; a.L.o. 388 (D.8.)

¶207

it23:i

¶208

MSR,J & TA,J wp 37196_2017 & wp_18559_2020

¶209

dt.25.l .20\9 of the Administrative Committee of the Telangana High Court, they were relieved and asked to report to the^principal secretary to the Govemment, General Administration Department (Political) of the State of Telangana and are believed to be accommodated in various departments by the said State.

¶210

In a similar manner, if the petitioners in Writ petition No.18559 of 2020 are allocated to the State of Telangana, the said State can accommodate them and utilize their services in its various Govemment Departments or in the High Court for the State of Telangana.

¶211

The later parl of Clause 18O states that vacant posts and posts created subsequent to the appointed day in the categories of last Grade employees and Light-Vehicular Drivers will be reckoned, f so desired by the concerned State, for the purpose offinal allotment of these employees.

¶212

44, This Court can take judicial notice of a recent policy decision taken at the highest level in the State of Telangana to identify the vacancies in all Govemment Departments and to fill up the same by following the relevant rules. Nothing prevents the State of Telangana to accommodate the petitioners in Writ Petition No.18559 of 2020 in some such vacancies taking advantage of the later part of Clause 18fi).

¶213

45, The Special G.P. for the State of A.p. however relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Jagiit Singh

¶214

. ,1 ,1..

¶215

MSR,J & TAJ w_37396²⁰¹⁷ & wp 18559 2020

¶216

MehtaT wherein transfer policy of an officer in the said Bank came up for consideration and it was observed that ordinarily and as far as practicable, a husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different, but it was stated that it would not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account, while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. This decision is distinguishable because it dealt with a case of transfer and not a situation of allocation to a particular State post-bifurcation of a Composite State into two States.

¶217

46' Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme court in Indradeo Paswan v. Union of India and Otherss by the Special Govemment Pleader for the State of A.p. to contend that allocation shouid not be interfered with on individual grievances relating to nonacceptance of options exercised, unless clear illegality or wednesbury unreasonableness is established.

¶218

In our ooinion, in the instant cases, there is clear illegality because the guidelines framed by the Union of India under Section 77(2) of the Act have been adopted by both State Govemments in regard to bifurcation / ailocation of the officers and emproyees of the erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal govemed by Section g2; hence, they have a statutory flavour; and contrary to the guidelines

¶219

'telzlty scc :oo E zoozlz; scc zso

¶220

. . 7(.. lvt)K,J 6a I A,J wp_37396 20t7 & wp_t8559_2020

¶221

framed by the Union of India, allocation of the petitioners has been affected causing them grave hardship.

¶222

Also, as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. lnternational Airport Authoritye, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution if the respondents are allowed to ignore / misinterpret the very guidelines for allocation framed by the Govemment of India and cause hardship to vulnerable categories of employees like the petitioners.

¶223

Accordingly, we hold that the final allocation of petitioners made vide Order No.l of 2017 d1.04.10.2017 by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India in F.No.A-1 l0l4 I l0 I 2014 - AT (Part 2) to the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot be sustained, and the petitioners are entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana in view of Clauses 18(i) and 18(1) of the Guideiines framed by the Govemment of India.

¶224

For the aforesaid reasons,

¶225

(a) Writ Petition No.37396 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.18559 of 2020 are both allowed;

¶226

(b) the final allocation of petitioners made vide Order No.1 of 2017 dt.04.10.2017 by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

¶227

'^{t orol:1 scc +ss}

¶228

MSR,J & TA,J wp_37396_2017 & wp_18559_2020

¶229

:i26ii

¶230

Pensions, Government of India in F.No.A-i¹⁰¹⁴ /¹⁰ I^201.4 - AT^(Part 2) to the State of Andhra Pradesh^is set^{aside, and the} petitioners are held entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana in view of Clauses 18O and 18(l) of the Guidelines framed by the Govemment of India; and

¶231

(") the respondents shall take all necessaly steps to relieve the petitioners from their current employment / place of work in the State of Andhra Pradesh within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and allocate them to the State of Telangana which State sha1l give appropriate posting orders to the petitioners in the departments of the said State within 4 weeks thereafter. No costs.

¶232

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶233

M.S, RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶234

T.AMARNATH GOUD, J

¶235

Date: 22.01.2021 SwiGra/I.{dr

G. Naveen Babu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Naveen Babu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Raghunath Agro Commodities Vs Union of India

M/s. Krishnaa Cotton Mills Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, And Another

Mudigonda Gurucharan Vs All Concerned

M/s. Sai Leela Granites Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu and Another