Dismissed

Polisetti Yuvabharathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Jun 2023WP/1386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction for the transfer of an Assistant Engineer from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The Court held that the allocation by the Supreme Court-appointed One Man Committee is final and binding, and such issues must be resolved via interlocutory applications before the Supreme Court, not this Court. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition seeking direction for transfer was dismissed without costs.

Polisetti Yuvabharathi Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETtTlo NO: 1386 OF 23

¶7

Between:

¶8

Porisetti Yuvabharathi. w/o R.Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 35 years. occ. Assistant Enqineer/Technicat- Fy;-H ffis-t_ib1]' !r""t No.s, Jammigadda, Suryapet-5082i 3, Telangana Siate.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PET|TIoNER

¶11

' #*?ti? ff.]S]iifl,fJgiRep.^{bv its chier secretary, secretariarBuirdins,}

¶12

The State of Telangana, Administration Department),^{Rep.by . its principalSecretary(General} Secretariat BuitdiniT, rank^- er]no'-Ho";j.

¶13

Hyderabad.

¶14

3 El?f:i:."rl"Tg:Rnpradesh,^{Rep. by its chiefSecretary,Verasapudi,}

¶15

4 H;,,"::iE,is,l$Jrj,lilJ,.l.;:fi :[sff,];,,bc,I1.,,.:xffi^,flg;ff :".,f^ry(Genera, 5. .The Chairman and Managing Director, APCPDCL, Corporate Office,

¶16

Vijaywada, Andhra pradesh.^-"

¶17

The Chairman and Managing Director, TSSPDCL, Corporate Office,

¶18

Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶19

7 l9!9", Raj Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, APCPDCL, AppCC,

¶20

Vidhyuth S<iudha, Vijayawada.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any Writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the inaction of the Respondent no.6 herein in

¶23

considering the Representation of ther petitioner herein dated 0210312021 and 2810912021 and forwardi.rg the same to the respondent Nos..l to 5 herein for ensuring that the petition--r is transferrt;d to the department of respondent No.5 herein as irregar, arbrtrary, in vioration of principres of naturar justice, in vioration of Articles 14' 1s, 16 ancr 21 of the constitution of rndia besides in vioration of circular Memo No 1896/spF-r/202i dated ogtogr2ozl issued by the Government of Telangana and the consent letter vide Lr.No.CMD/ApCPDCL /DlR(Tech)/Ao lD.No-244r'.a1 dated 2610312021 and consequenfly to direct the Respondent No.6 hereir to consider the petitioners representation dated 0210312021 and 2B/O9r2021 and forward the same to the respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein for giving effect to transfer the petitioner herein from the department of respondent No.6 to respondent No.5 forthwith.

¶24

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶25

Petition under secti()n 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.6 herein to consider the petitioners representation dated o2r03r2021 and 2810912021 and forward the same to the respondent Nos.1 to 2 herein for giving effect to transfer the petitioner herein from the department of respondent No.6 to respcndent No.5 forthwith, pending disposar of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 & 2 : SRI CH. KALYAN RAO,

¶28

GP FOR GENERAL ADMINTSTRATION

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents No.3&4: Mr.p.GOVlNDA REDDy, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR STATE OF A;p.

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents No.s : Mr.M.VlDyA SAGAR, SC FOR APCPDCL

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRI G.VlDyA SAGAR

¶32

The Court made the foilowing: ORDER

BEffirr@ ,/ /

li I

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^UJJALBHTIYAN AND

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TI'KARAMJI

¶38

Writ Petition No.1386 of 2023

¶39

ORDER: lPcr ttp llot'ble^{theCt,pf JtstrceLIjjaIBLtugai)}

¶40

Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned^counselfor the petitioner; Mr.Ch.Kalyan Rao, learned^Government Pleader for General Administration Department^appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2;^{Mr.P.Govind Reddy,} learned Special Counsel representing the^{State of} Andhra Pradesh appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and^4; Mr.M.Vidya Sagar, learned Standing counsel^for Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company^Limited (APCPDCL) appearing on behalf of respondent No.5; and Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing^on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶41

By filing this petition under Article 226 of^tlle Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction^to respondent No.6 to transfer her to respondent^No.S / APCPDCL.

¶42

\ \

¶43

According to the^pctitioner, she is a native^of Prakasam I)r;trict ol tlrt'^{undivided State ofAndhra} Pradesh. Shr: u'as recruttt:d^{by the then APCPDCL and} appointed zrs ,\ssistarlt^{Engrrlcer in Anantapur Districton} 04.11.2O10. F'ollou.ing^{tlrc bilurcationof the composite} State of Anrlhr-a^{Pracieshpr-trsuant to the Andhra Pradesh} Reorganizatior Act,^lQ l4^{irncl formation of the Stateof} Telangana, 1tt'titioner^{rt'r: s:rllotted toAndhra Pradesh} South Powcr l)istributior.r^{CiompanyLimited (APSPDCL)in} the year 2014 lor^{dischargir.rg her duties. Ultimately she} was relieverl from APSPDCI- on^{14.03.2020and allotted to} respondent No.6. It is stated^{that at the time of bilurcation,} petitioner had opted for rcspondent^{No'5; however, she was} allotted to respondent^{No.b, whereafter, sher,r'a s sent on} d.eputation. Slince then, 1le^{titioner isserving under} respondent No.6.

¶44

It is stated that.^{()overnmentof Telanganavide} Circular datect 09.09.2O2 1 has^{accorded No Objection to} those employees seeking transfer from the^{State of} Telangana to the State o[ Andhra Pradesh on permanent

¶45

¶46

¶47

basis provided the concerned employee submitted such application on or before 75.1O.2021 . It is stated that petitioner had submitted representation before respondent No.6 on O2.O3.2O21 and 28.09.2021. It is stated that petitioner has got a consent letter from an employee i.e., respondent No.7 who is serving in respondent No.5, though a native of Karimnagar District in the State of Telangana. It 15 1n such circumstances that petitioner seeks a mutual transfer with respondent No.7. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.S has not accorded approval to such permanent allocation of the petitioner. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above.

¶48

In the hearing held on OB.OL.2O23, Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 had raised the following objections:

¶49

"At the outset, Mr. Vidga Sagar has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainabilitg of the uit petition placing reliqnce on a decision of the Supreme Court in Telangana Pouter Generation Corporation Ltd. u. Andhra

I t

-' re

Pradesh Pouer Generation Corporation Ltd.t

¶54

A,7uert ry to ytctragraph 16 of the aforesaid decisiott, he sulrnlils that allocation of emploqees bettueert the tu.to States including amongst the potuer utilitg companies has attained finalitg follou:ing the decision of the one mon Committee headed bg ,Justice Dharmcdhikari.

¶55

He submits tltot in the said paragraph, Supremz Court has directed that decision of the one marL Committee sh.all be executed bg all the parties ds an order of the Supreme Court.

¶56

Fu'.rther, in po.ragraph 20 of the said judgmett, lt is stated that in case anA clarification or further direction is required, the corlcerned partA u)ould be entitled to approach the Su1:reme Court bg filing interlocutory applicatron.

¶57

¶58

Therefore, tf the petitioner has anA grieuance, he should approach the Supreme Court instead of filing uit petition before this Court."

¶59

2018 SCC Onlinc SC 3644

¶60

¶61

--ffi '., "/ ''' ../

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought for time

¶63

to examine the above objections.

¶64

In the hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph No.28 of the supplementary report dated 11.O3.2O2O of the one man Justice D.M.Dharhadhikari Committee regarding allocation of employees in power utilities falling within the bifurcated States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He submits that respondent Nos.S and 6 are at liberty to act on such recommendation which is beneficial to employees seeking allocation on reciprocal basis like that of petitioner ald respondent No.7

¶65

However, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 in addition to Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited (supra [1]) has also placed reliance on the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in a. Telangana Power Generation Corporation Lirnlted t Andhra Pradesh Pouter Generation Corporation t

¶66

. : ilr{5 .:: ;

¶67

(.t

¶68

Limited2 an(l submits thaL if ar-rybody has^{a grievance post} submission rf the supple mentary report^{b-v the otle man} Committee u hich has been affirmed by^{the Supreme Court,} the only option availablc to such^{an employeewould be to} approach the Supreme Court by filing^{aninterlocutory} application

¶69

8.1. He further submits that after^{submissionof the} supplementary report, the one man^Committeehas submitted ccncluding report dated 20.06.2020.^Insofarthe supplementary report clated¹ 1.03.2020^is concerned, paragraph Nrr.28 thereof reads as follows:

¶70

" i) B. Despite all the care taken bg^this Commit'.tee (uith the assistance of the Sub Commit.tee, comprising one member of each^side) if exce,ctional coses of certain employees are brough:,|. to the notice of the concerned Compaties in the tuto States, tlrc concerned Compa,Lies on reciprocal basis, tuill be at libeftg to malce necessarA additional allocations in mutual consultations and agreement betueen th.e C:hief Executiues of the concerned

¶71

'1zozr1^{r scc+ao}

¶72

¶73

Companies tuithin the State or inter se the tuo States."

¶74

9 . Submission s made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

¶75

As per the one man Committee, in the event of any exceptional case, the concerned companies would be at liberty to make necessary additional allocations in mutual consultation and agreement between the chief Executives of the concerned companies within the State or inter se between the two States on reciprocal basis.

¶76

1 1 . Thus, according to the one man Committee, respondent Nos.S and 6 are at liberty to make necessary additionai allocation in mutual consultation or upon entering into agreement between the Chief Executives of the two companies on reciprocal basis. It speaks of additional allocation on the basis of mutual consultation; not mutual transfer of two employees between respondent Nos.S and 6.

¶77

¶78

1m \ :.;,"-.

¶79

Ir Telangana Power Generation Corporation

¶80

Limited (supra [1]) Supremc Court has made it clear that the decision of the onc man Committee^.",'.ou1d be final arld binding on ail the parttes including the power utility companies ol the trvo States as well as the emplo]rees ald shall be executed by all the parties as an order of the Supreme Corrrt. It has bcen clarified that in the event any dispute persists in respect of employees of these^power utility comp:.nies of the tu,o states, it r,r,ould be open to the respective states / pou'er utility compalies to bring the same before the Committee. Supreme Court held as follows

¶81

"^t to 15......

¶82

We make it clear that the decision of the oh.e man Contmittee head bg Justice Dharmad.hikqri shr"tl be finat a.nd bincling on all tlrc parties including Potuer Utilitg Companies of the ttuo Slales as utell as the emplogees and shall be executed bg all the parties as an order of this t)ourt.

¶83

We mag also clarify that in case dispute perslsts in respect of other emploAees of these Pcu.ter Utility Companies of the tuo States, it uould be open to the respectiue States/ Power

¶84

¶85

utility Companies to bing the same^{before the} said Committee. The High^{Court in the impugned} judgment has already giuen a direction that till the diuision takes place the^{emplogees uorking} in the Telangana State^pou.ter utilities,^{uLho were} relieued, must be allouted to^{utork on par u,)ith} otheq emplogees ttithout any^{discimination,in} any aspect. It is also directed that^increments and all other seruice benefits,^{such as Earned} Laue Encashment, Leaue^{TrauelConcession etc.,} must be extended to these^{employees. Since} theg are alloued to tuork in Telangana^State pouer utilities, it tnrdly needs to be claified that theg are entitled to^{all otherseruice benefits} as well including increments and their^promotion etc."

¶86

Finally in Telangana Power^Genetation Corporation Limited^(supra [2]),^{Supreme Courtmade it} clear that the one man Committee^{was entrusted only with} distribution of personnel between the^{two States, which} distribution had been finalised^{by the one rnan Committee.} Insofar, allocation made by the one^{man Committeeis} concerned no objection or challenge^{by any employee or} officer would be entertainable.^{One man Cornmittee having}

¶87

¶88

l()

¶89

completed t re proccss o{' allocation, the s:rid alloczrtion cannot be challenged l>r an-l, emplol,ec or officcr of ant' utilit_v be for(' any forunr. Tl'rus, Supreme Court hcld eLs follou's:

¶90

".17. With. requrrl to other M.A.s, uthich haue been noticed olnue, tae make it clear thctt the^()r, e-Man Comnrittee was entrusted only tuith. d; stribution o.f personnel betueen the two States, which distiltution has been finalised bg the Cne-Man Cornmlttee. Insofar as the allocation mad.e by th.e On*Man Commit.tee, no objectic n or challen q<: bg ang emplogee or officer is entertainable, u,t: cla.rtfg that the One Man Com.nti,tee hauing completed the process of allocaticn, the soid allocation cannot be challenqed bg ang cmplogee or officer or anA utilitg before ang .fontm. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or a otuances as raised in differer'.t M.A.s, theu need no consideration in these .oroceedings and emplogees of pouer utilities are free to crdjudicate their claims before appropi'iate fontm in accordance uith lau. All other M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.'

¶91

We may also mention that in paragraph No.l2 o[ the said -jr-rdgment, Supreme Court referred to the

¶92

I I I

¶93

concluding report of the one mar Committee dated 20.06.2020. In the concluding report, an allocation list submitted by the Andhra pradesh utilities was approved. Committee had noticed that 655 employees had been allocated from Telalgana State to Andhra pradesh State and equal numbers from Andhra pradesh to Telangana State including Zl names from Andhra pradesh to Telalgana, which was held to be special cases like on spouse ground or on medical ground.

¶94

In paragraph No.l2.5 which is a direction of the one marr Committee, it clearly says that all employees not included in the allocation list of Andhra pradesh and Telangana State and serving on -ord_er to serue. basis in the companies on the formation of the two States in 2014 would be deemed to have been allocated to the company where they were posted and working.

¶95

¶96

Supreme Court referred to its previous order dated 2g.ll.2o1g where it was stated that the decision of the one man Committee would be final and binding on all_ ^

¶97

)

¶98

1-l.

¶99

':!lG \ .{i, . :r ),li

¶100

tlle partics includins tht: r-tlility companies of the tryo stat()s arld u'ould b.l cxecuted b-r. :rll the parties as ar.r order of the Suprcmc^(lc,r-rrt. ln the above context, Supreme Coul.t observed that in case an. clarification or further direction is reqr-tircd bv an-, of tl-rc parties, they are entitled to approach th,_,^gsp,-"-,: Court by filing an interlocutorv applica tior r .

¶101

1 7. Rcorganisation of the composite State o1. Andhrer Pradesh l'rad^.al<en place urilh effect from 02.06.2O14. More than 9 years ltave passecl by since then. Employees have alreadv bccn allocated to either of the two States. If this process is allon,ed to continue ad_infinitum, it will lead to settled matt('rs being unsettled and create confusion in the administration of both the States.

¶102

In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the v,'rit petition and grant the relief as sought for by the petition --r.

¶103

19 Writ petition is accordingly dismissed

¶104

¶105

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶106

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶107

To,

¶108

SD/. K. VENKAIAH //rRUE coPY//^{AsslsrA2TAEGlsrRAR} - sEcrloN OFFTCER

¶109

lff!33J?"'3ffi]€##piB,f, ,.,?."*1+,,3^? j.r[ofl 3""Jn",,hestare of Telangana. IOUTI

¶110

. RB:,if',,B#k?;? B

¶111

One CC to Mr.M.Vlt _^{State of Telangana.} [(;gg^ti?td[i. ^^{,"il:: H: : ;:T:} ;: 3. ?,13 33 tosRt c vtDyA Sncnn, sENtoR ADVocrE. [our] BSK r clP*._h=-

HIGH COURT

DATED:201061,2023

ORDER

WP.No.I386 of 2023

e STArE
q
(
oz
o 1s j$. NB .L
r.) A.
i
I oESnar 6d

¶117

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS