Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. Versus D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.

Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. Versus D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D.No.28852 of 2020
Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors.    …Petitioner(s)
Versus
D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1.0. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the 84
petitioners   –   erstwhile   employees   of   the   Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful
disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this
Court dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil
Appeal   No.11435   of   2018   and   other   allied
Miscellaneous Applications in the case of Telangana
Page  1 of  54
Power   Generation   Corporation   Limited   vs.   Andhra
Pradesh   Power   Generation   Corporation   Limited
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 995 non­compliance
alleged   against   the   Telangana   Power   Utilities
(hereinafter referred to as the “TS Power Utilities”).
2.0. Shri Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate has
appeared   on   behalf   of   the   applicants,   Shri   Ranjit
Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior Advocates have
appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors – Telangana
Power Utilities and Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned
Senior   Advocate   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the
respondent­ Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
3.0. Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf   of   the   applicants   has   vehemently   submitted
that   by   detailed   judgment   and   orders   dated
20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020 this Hon’ble Court accepted
the report submitted by the One Man Committee of
Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   D   M   Dharmadhikari.   It   is
submitted that by an order dated 7.12.2020 this Court
had accepted the Concluding Report of the One Man
Page  2 of  54
Committee   and   has   directed   the   respondents   to
implement and absorb all the employees allocated to
TS Power Utilities.   However, TS Power Utilities have
arbitrarily   and   unilaterally   left   out   the   petitioners
contrary to the judgment dated 7.12.2020.
3.1. It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi that a perusal of the
judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by this
Court   would   show   that  the   objections   of   TS  Power
Utilities, with regard to the excess allocation and also
with   regard   to   the   reciprocity,   in   respect   of   655
numbers, were categorically rejected and the final list
appended to the Concluding Report has been expressly
affirmed. It is submitted that as such there was an
express   direction   to   the   power   utilities   of   both   the
States and all concerned to implement the report of
One Man Committee.
3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior
Advocate that a perusal of the Concluding Report of
the One Man Committee makes it explicit that both the
Power Utilities have to absorb 655 employees each as
Page  3 of  54
per   Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020.   It   is
submitted   that   this   figure   of   655   has   also   been
reiterated by this Court in the subsequent judgment
and order dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that in the
operative directions in the Concluding Report, it has
expressly been stated that allocation made is final and
binding   both   on   the   employer   and   employees;   and
failure to implement the same may be reported to the
Supreme Court for remedial or punitive action. It is
submitted that the only exception carved out in the
said directions was with regard to those employees
who have attained the age of 58 years in the year
2020, who will be kept out of the allocation process. It
is submitted that none of the petitioners have attained
the age of 58 years in the year 2020.
3.3. It is submitted that all the 84 petitioners figured in the
final list prepared by the One Man Committee. The
names of the petitioners were duly mentioned in the
said list, which was prepared utilities wise by the One
Man Committee. It is submitted that as per the final
Page  4 of  54
list 28 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35
members had to be absorbed in TS Transco, similarly
21 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Discoms.
3.4. It is submitted that pursuant to the passing of the
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 by the One Man
Committee,   Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities   have
implemented the directions in toto, as per the final list
annexed to the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020
prepared by the One Man Committee.
3.5. It is submitted that on one hand, the Andhra Pradesh
Power Utilities, while implementing the directions have
relived the applicants, however TS Power Utilities have
not absorbed the petitioners, which action is in teeth
of directions issued by this Court accepting One Man
Committee   report   of   Hon’ble   Mr.   Justice   D   M
Dharmadhikari.
3.6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein ought not
have been dropped by TS Power Utilities in terms of
the judgment dated 7.12.2020 because; (I) apparently
Page  5 of  54
the names of the petitioners are part of the Concluding
Report   dated   20.06.2020   and   allocation   list   of
Direction Nos.II and III ; (II) none of the petitioners had
attained the age of 58 years in the year 2020 and thus
are outside the scope and ambit of Direction No.I; (III)
the   relieving   orders   issued   by   the   Andhra   Pradesh
Utilities   to   petitioners   upon   being   allocated   to   TS
Utilities   dated   20.06.2020   in     terms   of   Concluding
Report   dated   20.06.2020   are   upheld   and   said
allocation has become final in terms of the judgment
dated   7.12.2020;   (IV)   That   TS   Power   Utilities   have
truncated the entire allocation by indulging into reallocation of retired employees. The lists annexed to
office order have two lists, one of (Employee absorbed),
second list comprises of those employees who were
allocated   by   One   Man   Committee   to   corresponding
Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities and they got expired or
have attained the age of 58 years. It is submitted that
said second list is appended only to cause confusion
and none of the employees in the second list are part
of the final lists of TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL or
Page  6 of  54
TSNPDCL   as   per   the   Concluding   Report   dated
20.06.2020 r/w compliance report dated 26.06.2020.
3.7. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior
Advocate   that   despite   express   directions   from   this
Court read with directions of Concluding Report dated
20.06.2020, the respondent contemnors ­ TS Power
Utilities   are   in   willful   disobedience   in   not   having
implemented   the   allocation   made   by   the   One   Man
Committee as per the final list, leaving the petitioners,
who were to be absorbed in the power utilities of the
Telangana  State high and dry. It is submitted that
non­compliance is borne out by the following:
(I). That the office order dated 17.12.2020 issued by the
TS Genco which is contrary to the report of the One
Man Committee accepted by this Court;
A. that   as   per   report   of   the   One   Man   Committee,   TS
Genco was to absorb 300 employees in total, from AP
Genco; 
B. that   since   TS   Genco   has   already   admitted   26
employees   in   terms   of   Supplementary   Report   dated
Page  7 of  54
11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by TS
Genco ought to be 300 as per the judgment dated
7.12.2020; 
C. that however, TS Genco has reduced this number of
226   employees   and   resultantly   28   petitioners   are
dropped   their   allocation   to   TS   Genco   held   to   be
absolute and all 28 petitioners have not attained the
age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of
direction. It is submitted that this is contrary to the
judgment of this Court, the direction no. I stipulates to
exclude retired persons from TS Genco allocation list
annexed   to   Concluding   Report   and   none   of   the
petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I;
D. that therefore, TS Genco have devised the office order
to circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of
the numbers and truncating the allocation lists and
contemnors are guilty of dropping 28 petitioners, as a
result of willful disobedience of the order of this Court;
E. that the list of employees absorbed does not include
the 28 petitioners who were already included in the
final list of the One Man Committee. It is submitted
Page  8 of  54
that the said lists annexed to office order are prepared
to confuse the tally of allocation lists and to suppress
the fact that TS Genco has absorbed only 226 (out of
300), a list of 252(226 + 26) has been appended to
office   order   to   mislead   this   Court   by   repeating   the
same   26   employees   who   were   already   admitted   on
11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of One Man
Committee. It is submitted that further a list of 48
employees is appended, these are employees who were
never part of 300 employees allocated to TS Genco and
the list is fraudulently appended, just to display and
match the numbers. 
3.8. It is further submitted that similarly office order dated
18.12.2020 issued by the TS Transco is nothing but a
willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed
by   this   Court   dated   20.06.2020   and   7.12.2020
accepting the report of the One Man Committee. It is
submitted   that   as   per   the   Concluding   Report,   TS
Transco   was   to   absorb   173   employees   from   AP
Transco. It is submitted that since TS Transco had
Page  9 of  54
already   admitted   30   employees   in   terms   of
Supplementary   Report   dated   11.03.2020,   the   total
employees to be admitted by TS Transco ought to be as
per the judgment dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that
however, TS Transco has reduced this number to 104
employees and resultantly 35 petitioners are dropped
despite   their   allocation   to   TS   Transco   held   to   be
absolute and all 35 petitioners have not attained the
age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of
Direction I. It is submitted that this is contrary to the
judgment   of   this   Court,   the   Direction   No.I   only
stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TS Transco
list annexed to Concluding Report and none of the
petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No. I. It is
submitted   that   TS   Transco   issued   office   order
audaciously   ignoring   the   allocation   made   under
Direction No.II & III as approved by this Court. It is
submitted that therefore, TS Transco have devised the
office order to circumvent the orders of this Court with
jugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation
lists   and   contemnors   are   guilty   of   dropping   35
Page  10 of  54
petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the
order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of
employees   absorbed   does   not   include   the   35
petitioners who were already included in the final list
of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to
office   order   are   prepared   to   confuse   the   tally   of
allocation lists and suppress the fact that TS Transco
has absorbed only 104 (out of (173 +8), a list of 134
(104 +30) has been appended to office order to mislead
this Court by repeating the same 30 employees who
were   already   admitted   on   11.03.2020   vide
Supplementary Report of One Man Committee. It is
further submitted that the employees who were never
part of 173 employees allocated just to TS Transco and
the list is fraudulently appended to display and match
the number.
3.9. It is further submitted that even the office order dated
18.12.2020   issued   by   the   TSNPDCL   would   also
tantamount to contempt and willful disobedience of
the judgment and order passed by this Court. It is
Page  11 of  54
submitted   that   as   per   the   Concluding   Report,
TSSPDCL   was   to   absorb   113   employees   from
APSPDCL. It is submitted that since TSSPDCL had
already   admitted   15   employees   in   terms   of
Supplementary   Report   dated   11.03.2020,   the   total
employees to be admitted by TASSPDCL ought to be
(113+2) as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020. It is
submitted that however, TSSPDCL has reduced this
number to 66 employees and resultantly 20 petitioners
are dropped despite their allocation to TSSPDCL held
to be absolute and all 20 petitioners have not attained
age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of
Direction I. It is submitted that this is contrary to the
judgment   of   this   Court,   the   Direction   No.I   only
stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSSPDCL
Allocation list annexed to the Concluding Report and
none of the petitioners are retired in terms of Direction
No.I. It is submitted that TSSPDCL issued office order
audaciously   ignoring   the   allocation   made   under
Direction Nos. II & III as approved by this Court. It is
submitted that therefore, TSSPDCL have devised the
Page  12 of  54
office order to circumvent the orders of this Court with
jugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation
lists   and   contemnors   are   guilty   of   dropping   20
petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the
order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of
employees   absorbed   does   not   include   the   20
petitioners who were already included in the final list
of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to
office   order   are   prepared   to   confuse   the   tally   of
allocation lists and suppress the fact that TSSPDCL
has absorbed only 66 (out of (113 +2), a list of 81 (66
+15) has been appended to office order to mislead this
Court by repeating the same 15 employees who were
already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary
Report of One Man Committee. It is further submitted
that   the   employees   who   were   never   part   of   113
employees allocated just to TSSPDCL and the list is
fraudulently   appended   to   display   and   match   the
number.
3.10.It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior
Page  13 of  54
Advocate that the office order dated 19.12.2020 issued
by the TSNPDCL is also in teeth of the judgment and
order passed by this Court. It is submitted that as per
the Concluding Report, TSNPDCL was to absorb 69
employees from APLPDCL & APSPDCL. It is submitted
that since TSNPDCL, the net employees to be admitted
by TSSPDCL ought to be 69 as per the judgment dated
07.12.2020. It is submitted that however, TSNPDCL
has   reduced   this   number   to   60   employees   and
resultantly petitioner no.83 is dropped despite their
allocation to TSNPDCL held to be absolute and the
said single petitioner has not attained age of 58 years
and thus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is
submitted that this is contrary to the judgment of this
Court, the Direction No.I only stipulates to exclude
Retired persons from TSNPDCL Allocation list annexed
to the Concluding Report and petitioner no.83 is not
retired in terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that
therefore, TSNPDCL have devised the office order to
circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of the
numbers   and   truncating   the   allocation   lists   and
Page  14 of  54
contemnors are guilty of dropping 1 petitioner as a
result of willful disobedience of the order of this Court.
It is submitted that the list of employees absorbed
does not include the petitioner no.83 who was already
included in the final list of the One Man Committee.
The said lists annexed to office order are prepared to
confuse the tally of allocation lists and suppress the
fact that TSNPDCL has absorbed only 60 (out of 69),
but a list 65 has been appended to office order to
mislead this Court. It is further submitted that the
employees   who   were   never   part   of   69   employees
allocated just to  TSNPDCL and the list is fraudulently
appended to display and match the number.
3.11.It is submitted that from the above, it is apparent that
TS Power Utilities have not implemented the judgment
dated 7.12.2020 passed by this Court. It is submitted
that after confirmation of the Concluding Report of the
One Man Committee and allocation lists, this was only
a mechanical exercise of admission of the employees
based   on   the   lists,   but   TS   Power   Utilities   have
Page  15 of  54
reopened the entire lists and indulged in unilateral
pick and choose.
3.12.It is submitted that in terms of direction VI of the One
Man Committee, the petitioners are to be given posting
and joining orders. It is submitted that the direction
issued is followed by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities,
but Telangana Power Utilities have unilaterally altered
the allocation lists and have denied posting and joining
orders of 84 petitioners.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to punish the
respondent/ contemnors Telangana Power Utilities for
deliberate   and   willful   disobedience   of   the   orders
passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020  and 7.12.2020
and not acting as per the Concluding Report of the
One Man Committee.
4.0.   Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior
Advocates   have   appeared   on   behalf   of   alleged
contemnors   –   Telangana   Power   Utilities.   It   is
vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the TS
Power Utilities that vide order dated 28.11.2019 this
Page  16 of  54
Court   constituted   One   Man   Committee   headed   by
Justice   D   M   Dharmadhikari   (Retd.)   to   frame   the
modalities   and   finalize   the   allocation   of   employees
between the Power Utilities of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh.     One   Man   Committee   determined   the
modalities   and   submitted   final   report   dated
26.12.2019   allocating   655   employees   out   of   1157
employees from TS power Utilities to Andhra Pradesh
Power Utilities while retaining 502 employees in TS
Power Utilities, as per the opinion given by them. That
aggrieved by the final report dated 26.12.2019, the
Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities   filed   Miscellaneous
Application Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2019 in Civil Appeal
No. 11435 of 2019. That this Court by an order dated
24.1.2020 directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
to   make   a   representation   and   same   was   to   be
considered   by   the   One   Man   Committee   and   take
appropriate decision.
4.1. It is submitted that in terms of the direction of this
Court, an application was made by Andhra Pradesh
Page  17 of  54
Power   Utilities   on   3.2.2020   before   the   One   Man
Committee and the TS Power Utilities were submitted
their objections. That during the hearing before the
One   Man   Committee,   TS   Power   Utilities   agreed   to
accommodate   71   employees   from   Andhra   Pradesh
Power Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouse and
medical grounds. That the One Man Committee vide
supplementary   report   dated   11.3.2020   allocated   71
employees from Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to TS
Power Utilities on spouse and medical grounds etc.
and directed the Andhra  Pradesh Power Utilities  to
identify remaining 584 employees (655­71 = 584) for
allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, since
Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities   had   accepted   655
employees allocated by TS Power Utilities. Accordingly,
the   TS   Power   Utilities   issued   posting   orders   to   71
employees allocated by Supplementary Report dated
11.3.2020.   That   thereafter   Andhra   Pradesh   Power
Utilities submitted a report of 584 employees allocable
from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana vide their letter
dated   12.3.2020.   Aggrieved   by   the   letter   dated
Page  18 of  54
12.03.2020   of   Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities,   a
representation was made by TS Power Utilities to the
One Man Committee to reconsider the list submitted
by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities being contrary to
modalities. It is submitted that at that stage, One Man
Committee filed an application in MA No.915 of 2020
in MA No.60 of 2020 for payment of salaries pending
consideration   of   objections   made   by   the   TS   Power
Utilities.  The same came to be allowed by order dated
8.4.2020. It is submitted that thereafter this Court in
Application   made   by   the   TS   Power   Utilities,   by   an
order   dated   1.5.2020   observed   that   One   Man
Committee shall take up the objections and take a
decision at an early date after hearing all the affected
persons and further directed to take steps for payment
of salaries to the effected employees within a period of
one week. Accordingly, TS Power Utilities have paid
salaries to 584 employees who are figuring in the list
dated   12.3.2020   communicated   by   the   Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities to the One Man Committee.
Page  19 of  54
It   is   submitted   that   One   Man   Committee   vide
instructions   dated   11.5.2020   directed   the   Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities to send their proposed revised
list   limited   to   584   employees,   duly   taking   into
consideration   the   representations   received   from   the
employees. It is submitted that Andhra Pradesh Power
Utilities   vide   letter   dated   26.5.2020   submitted   a
revised list of 655 employees allocable from Andhra
Pradesh   to   TS   Power   Utilities   on   the   principle   of
reciprocity.  It is submitted that said list includes 71
employees already allocated vide supplementary report
dated 11.3.2020 and working TS Power Utilities as on
that date. 
4.2. It is submitted that thereafter One Man Committee by
Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020   annexed   the
revised list dated 26.5.2020 furnished by the Andhra
Pradesh   and   gave   further   directions.   It   is   further
submitted   that   One   Man   Committee   held   that   the
allocation   of   655   employees   from   Telangana   and
Andhra Pradesh is concluded. It further observed that
Page  20 of  54
at para 28 that allocation list, company wise, post wise
prepared by the Andhra Pradesh for allocation from
Andhra Pradesh to Telangana is approved and in para
no.29 suggested the list annexed to concluding report
to be modified in terms of the directions contained
therein.   It   is   submitted   that   direction   No.I   of   para
No.29   specifies   that   the   retired   employees   who
attained or will be attaining 58 years of age in the year
2020 can be kept out of the allocation process and
their names in the allocation lists are to be removed. It
is submitted that direction no.  II specifies that the
Sub­Committee   Member,   Andhra   Pradesh   may   reexamine left out spouse and medical cases and every
attempt should be made to accommodate them in the
State  of  their  option.  It  is submitted  that  direction
no.III specifies that all SC/ST employees cases be reexamined to accommodate them as per Modality VII in
the State where they are notified as SCs and STs  so as
not to affect their future service growth.
4.3. It   is   submitted   that   on   the   implementation   of   the
Page  21 of  54
Direction No.I of para 29 of the Concluding Report, the
TS Power Utilities have identified 123 employees who
are   to   be   removed   from   the   allocated   list   of   655
employees from Telangana State to  Andhra Pradesh.
Accordingly, allocated employees from Telangana State
to Andhra Pradesh is reduced from 655 to 532 (655­
123).   It is submitted that therefore, correspondingly
532 members are to be allocated from Andhra Pradesh
to Telangana State. It is submitted that out of 532
allocable employees, 71 employees have already joined
and   working   in   TS   Power   Utilities   in   terms   of   the
Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. Accordingly,
equal  number  of  employees  i.e.  123  members were
removed   from   the   list   of   allocable   employees   from
Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State on the principle of
Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality.   It is submitted
that in the process of removing 123 members, the 71
employees already allocated have not been disturbed.
Accordingly, 456 employees are allocable from Andhra
Pradesh   to   Telangana   State.   In   respect   of   two
employees   allocable   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Page  22 of  54
Telangana State, a clarification has been sought for,
from the Andhra Pradesh.
4.4. It is submitted that thus the TS Power Utilities have
implemented   the   judgment   dated   7.12.2020   and
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One Man
Committee in its true spirit. It is submitted that thus,
the excess employees relieved from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana State are 83 (615­532=83).
4.5. It  is  submitted   that   in   the   process  of   allocation   of
employees,   One   Man   Committee   has   allocated   71
employees working in Andhra Pradesh to Telangana
State   on   spouse   and   medical   grounds.   They   were
treated as part of allocable employees in reciprocation
of 655 already allocated to Andhra Pradesh vide Final
Report   dated   26.12.2019.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore,   Andhra   Pradesh   was   directed   to   identify
remaining   584   (655­71)   vide   the   Supplementary
Report dated 11.3.2020.
4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction
Page  23 of  54
No.   II   of   Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020,   the
same   procedure   is   to   be   followed   by   the   Andhra
Pradesh   whereas   Andhra   Pradesh   vide   letter   dated
26.8.2020   identified   10   employees,   who   are   shown
over and above allocable 655 employees, which is just
contrary to the reports of the One Man Committee. It is
further   submitted   that   it   is   open   for   the   Andhra
Pradesh   to   adjust   the   said   employees   within   the
Reciprocation   ratio   and   in   proportion   to   allocated
employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.
4.7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Telangana
State   Power   Utilities   that   entire   allocation   process
undertaken   by   the   One   Man   Committee   is   on   the
principle of reciprocity and the same was reiterated in
para no.21 of the Concluding Report. It is submitted
that since 655 employees are already allocated vide
Final   Report   dated   26.12.2019   from   Telangana   to
Andhra Pradesh, equal number were allocable from
Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. It is submitted
that   the   One   Man   Committee   had   taking   into
Page  24 of  54
consideration   of   71   employees   already   allocated,
directed the Andhra Pradesh to furnish a list of 584
employees and the same were included as Annexure to
the   Concluding   Report.   In   the   process   of
implementation   of   Directions   of   Concluding   Report
dated   20.06.2020,   123   employees   are   deleted   by
Telangana  State. It is submitted that therefore, the
allocable   employees   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Telangana State shall also stand reduced from 655 to
532  (655­123=532).  It  is  submitted  that   further  10
employees allocated under Direction No.II are to be
accommodated   within   532   including   71   employees
already allocated. However, the Andhra Pradesh has
not   undertaken   any   exercise   thereby   leading   to
retention   of   83   employees   allocable   from   Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana State, which lead to the present
situation. It is submitted that instead of rectifying the
same, Andhra Pradesh is seeking to justify their stand
by filing intervention petition, which is unjustified.
4.8. It is further submitted that the principle of reciprocity
Page  25 of  54
has been approved by this Court in its judgment dated
7.12.2020 (para 26, 41 & 42). It is submitted that this
Court has further observed that the implementation of
the direction cannot be termed as modification of the
Concluding Report and both the Power Utilities were
directed to implement the same. It is submitted that
thus there is no violation on the part of the TS Power
Utilities   in   the   implementation   of   the   orders   dated
7.12.2020.
Making   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to
dismiss the present contempt petition and to direct
Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities   to   retain   the
corresponding 83 employees deleted from the list of
employees   allocable   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Telangana duly adhering to the principle of reciprocity
and financial neutrality.
5.0. Shri   Niraj   Kishan   Kaul,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   intervenors­   Andhra
Pradesh   Power   Utilities   has   submitted   that   the
respective   alleged   contemnors   have   committed
Page  26 of  54
apparent contempt of the judgment and order passed
by this Court dated 7.12.2020.
5.1. It is submitted that the allocation list approved by the
One   Man   Committee   in   the   Final   Report   dated
20.06.2020 is final and the same is to be implemented
by the both the Power Utilities without justifying the
allocation list. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities
have devised office orders only to reopen and review
the allocation exercise which is already concluded and
approved by this Court (Direction No.I).
5.2. It is submitted that the retired / retiring employees are
not part of the financial burden as it was agreed by
both the sides to keep them out of allocation exercise.
It is submitted that financial neutrality was already in
place while preparing 655 = 655. It is submitted that
therefor, thereafter it does not  lie in mouth of any
utility that retired / retiring employees are financial
burden on them.
5.3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment
Page  27 of  54
dated 7.12.2020 would show that the objection of TS
Power Utilities with regard to excess allocation  and
also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of 655
number were categorically rejected and the final list
appended   to   the   Concluding   Report   was   expressly
affirmed.   It   is   submitted   that   there   is   expressed
direction to the Power Utilities of both the States and
all concerned to implement the report of the One Man
Committee.
5.4. It   is   submitted   that   TS   Power   Utilities   has   been
involved in jugglery of figures and they have brought
new figures time and again to delay and confuse the
allocation process.
5.5. It is submitted that in terms of direction (VI) of the One
Man   Committee   both   the   TS   and   Andhra   Pradesh
Power Utilities were required to issue order of posting
of   their   joining   and   granting   sufficient   time   to   the
employee to report for duty. It is submitted that the
said   direction   has   been   followed   by   the   Andhra
Pradesh   Utilities,   however   Telangana   Utilities   /
Page  28 of  54
Telangana State has unilaterally altered the allocation
list   and   denied   posting   and   joining   orders   to   84
petitioners, which is just contrary to the judgment and
order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 and the
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is submitted
that the respondent contemnors have disregarded the
soul of the allocation exercise and are in serious willful
contempt of this Court.
6.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. The present application has been preferred by
the   84   employees   of   the   erstwhile   Andhra   Pradesh
Power Utilities who are relieved by the Andhra Pradesh
Power   Utilities,   alleging   willful   and   deliberate
disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in
the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 approving the
concluding report / final report submitted by the One
Man   Committee   consisting   of   Justice   D   M
Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this Court. At this
stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   such   the
Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities have already relieved
Page  29 of  54
the   petitioners.   However,   the   respondent   alleged
contemnors ­ Telangana State Power Utilities have not
permitted   the   applicants   to   join   the   duty   in   the
respective TS Power Utilities.
7.0. Before   we   proceed   further   to   consider   the   present
application, the history which led to constitute of a
One Man Committee and chronological list and events
are required to be referred to and which as such had
been   ultimately   dealt   with   and   considered   by   this
Court in the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 in
MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018
and other allied Applications, which are as under:
At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the
present case, the dispute is concerning the employees
of   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities   and   Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities.
7.1. The   Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganization   Act,   2014   was
enacted by Parliament to provide for the reorganization
of   the   existing   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and   for
matters connected therewith. By Section 3, Telangana
Page  30 of  54
State   was   formed   comprising   of   the   territories
mentioned therein and by virtue of Section 4, the State
of Andhra Pradesh was to comprise the territories of
the existing state of Andhra Pradesh. Section 82 of the
Andhra   Pradesh   Reorganization   Act,   2014   reads   as
under:
“82. Provision for employees of Public Sector
Undertakings, etc.—On and from the appointed
day,   the   employees   of   State   Public   Sector
Undertakings,   corporations   and   other
autonomous bodies shall continue to function
in   such   undertaking,   corporation   or
autonomous bodies for a period of one year
and   during   this   period   the   corporate   body
concerned  shall   determine  the  modalities  for
distributing   the   personnel   between   the   two
successor States.”
7.2. The   State   of   erstwhile   Andhra   Pradesh   issued
government   orders   for   Distribution   Companies,   for
Generation   Companies   and   for   Transmission
Corporation   whereby   assets   and   liabilities   of   the
aforesaid   corporations   and   companies   were
apportioned between the two new States along with the
posts sanctioned for the employees working in those
power sector corporations/companies.   However, the
Power Utilities of the two newly formed States (Andhra
Page  31 of  54
Pradesh Power Utilities and Telangana Power Utilities)
could   not   arrive   at   any   consensus   with   regard   to
modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel.
The power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved
1157   employees   working   with   power   utilities   of
Telangana   to   join   in   respective   power   utilities   of
Andhra   Pradesh.   Number   of   employees   filed   writ
petitions in High Court challenging the decision of the
power utilities of Telangana. 242 employees, who were
working   in   power   utilities   of   Andhra   Pradesh   got
themselves   relieved   and   joined   in   power   utilities   of
Telangana.   The   power   utilities   of   Telangana   were
motivated by principle of nativity, i.e., those employees
whose service records mentioned them as resident of
any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh were
relieved and those who belonged to territory of the
newly formed State of Telangana were permitted to join
at Telangana by their self­option, against which writ
petition   was   filed   before   the   High   Court.   The   High
Court   by   its   common   judgment   dated   02.02.2018
allowed   the   writ   petitions,   set   aside   the   impugned
Page  32 of  54
action of power utilities of Telangana relieving 1157
employees   and   issued   further   directions.   The   High
Court specifically disapproved the principle of nativity,
which was the factor for allocation of the employees by
the Telangana State power utilities.
7.3. The   matter   reached   to   this   Court   and   this   Court
upheld the order of the High Court.  However, noticing
that two States have not been able to arrive at any
consensus and to finally determine the modalities for
distributing   the   personnel   between   two   States,
appointed One Man Committee consisting of Justice
D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of this Court. In
the   order   dated   28.11.2018   this   Court   specifically
made   it   clear   that   the   decision   of   the   One   Man
Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties
including Power Utility Companies of the two States as
well as the employees and shall be executed by all the
parties   as   an   order   of   this   Court.   This   Court   also
observed   that   in   case   any   clarification   or   further
direction is required by any of the parties they are
Page  33 of  54
entitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutory
application in the proceedings.
7.4. That thereafter, after considering the representation by
all concerned and the respective stake holders, the
Committee on 17.04.2019 had finalised XIV modalities
to be adopted for allocation of the personnel between
two   States   in   accordance   with   Section   82   of   the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.  Thereafter,
the Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited
filed   an   application   questioning   the   modalities
finalised by One­Man Committee. However, this Court
did not entertain the said application. That thereafter,
a report title as “Final Report of One­Man Committee”
dated   26.12.2019   was   submitted   by   One­Man
Committee. Along with the report, a final allocation list
in   the   two   States   corporations/companies   was
prepared   and   annexed.   List   of   655   personnel,   who
were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh
utilities as submitted by sub­Committee Members on
behalf   of   Telangana   utilities   was   approved   by   the
Page  34 of  54
Hon’ble One­Man Committee and was part of the final
list. That the Andhra Pradesh utilities were aggrieved
by the final list communicated in the final report filed
Interlocutory Applications. It was the case on behalf of
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities that the modalities
have   not   been   correctly   implemented   and   the   list
annexed is not in accordance with the modalities. This
Court disposed of the said application with following
observations:
“This   Court   by   the   final   judgment   having
entrusted   the   work   of   allocation   to   one   man
committee, as agreed by parties, the modalities
finalized by one man committee is binding on all,
to   which,   there   is   no   dissension   between   the
parties.   There   being   no   dispute   regarding
modalities,   in   event,   there   is   some   error   or
mistake in the working of the modalities that can
be pointed out to the same committee by means
of a representation and we hope and trust that
the committee shall look into the said grievance
and correct the error, if any. We also make it
clear that if the representation is submitted by
the applicant, copy of the same shall be given to
the power utilities of both the Sates, who may
also have liberty to submit a response to those
representation, which may be considered by the
one   man   committee.   The   representation   be
submitted   within   two   weeks   and   response
thereto   be   also   submitted   within   two   weeks
thereafter.”
7.5. After   the   order   dated   24.01.2020,   the   One­Man
Committee   after   deliberations   with   all   stakeholders
Page  35 of  54
submitted a Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020.
In the Supplementary Report, it was noticed that T.S.
power utilities relieved employees numbering total 655
to join A.P. power utilities. It also noted that Telangana
Power   Utilities   are   agreeable   to   accommodate   71
employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State
companies as they are special cases like of spouses,
medical   and   handicapped   employees   or   their
dependents.
7.6. In the Supplementary Report, the One­Man Committee
directed that the entire allocation process based on the
allocation   list   with   the   Final   Report   and
Supplementary Report be completed by 30.03.2020. A
clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by the
One­Man   Committee.   Aggrieved   by   Supplementary
Report,   the   Telangana   power   utilities   filed
Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2020 with regard
to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified by
Sub­Committee   Members   of   Andhra   Pradesh.   This
Court disposed of the said application observing that
Page  36 of  54
the objections with regard to 584 employees were to be
considered by One Man Committee.
7.7. One­Man Committee after the order of this Court dated
01.05.2020   issued   a   Concluding   Report   dated
20.06.2020. In the Concluding Report, an allocation
list   submitted   by   Andhra   Pradesh   utilities   was
approved. The Committee noticed that 655 employees
have been allocated from Telangana State to Andhra
Pradesh and equal numbers from Andhra Pradesh to
Telangana including 71 names from Andhra Pradesh
to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases
like   spouse   and   medical   cases.   Certain   further
directions were given by the One­Man Committee in
the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approving
the   list   of   Sub­Committee   Members   of   the   Andhra
Pradesh. In the Concluding Report, directions are to
the following effect:
“Directions:
I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para
21   of   the   Supplementary   Report   of   this
Committee regarding retired employees on both
sides,   it   is   further   directed,   that   in   both   the
States, employees who have attained or will be
Page  37 of  54
attaining 58 Years of age in the year 2020 will
be kept out of the allocation process and their
names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.
II.   In   the   allocation   process   of   the   present
dimension and undertaken after 5 years delay,
it is not possible  for the Committee  to satisfy
individual   needs   and   comforts   and   service
prospects   of   every   employee.   The   allocation
process   has   been   finalized   on   laid   down
principles contained in the modalities and elbow
room,   wherever   permissible,   in   the   modalities
has been given effect to. The committee however
directs the Sub Committee member of AP to reexamine any left out spouse and medical cases
and   every   attempt   should   be   made   to
accommodate them in the state of their option.
III. All SC/ST employees cases be reexamined to
accommodate them as per modality VIII in the
State where they are notified as SCs or STs so
as not to affect their future service growth.
IV. All the employees finally allocated to a Public
Utility will be paid regular salary from January
2020   and   arrears   of   salary   due   with   other
benefits attached to the posts. The payments of
salary partly or fully made by the Companies in
the   Two   States   in   the   interim   period   pending
finalization   of   allocation   during   coronavirus
pandemic,   will   be   shared/reimbursed   by   the
companies in the Two States mutually by paying
and   claiming   reimbursement,   if   necessary,   for
the payments made in the interim period. It is
made clear that the entire burden of salary and
arrears of salary for each employee would be on
the Company to which the employee is finally
allocated and the said Company will reimburse
interim payments pending allocation made if any
by the Company to which the employee has not
been finally allocated.
V. All employees not included in the Allocation
Page  38 of  54
List of AP and TS and serving on "order to serve"
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 are
presently posted and working. 
VI. Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP
utilities will issue orders of posting and joining,
with granting sufficient time to the employees to
report for duties, keeping into consideration the
constrains   on   movements   in   the   current
coronavirus pandemic period and the consequent
lockdown imposed.
VII. All Employers of the Power Utilities in the
Two   States   will   facilitate   smooth   posting   and
joining   of   employees   in   the   Companies   of   the
Two States and the Government and the Police
Authorities of Two States will cooperate and also
facilitate   the   movement   of   the   employees
allocated   from   one   Company   in   the   State   to
Company in another Slate. 
VIII.   The   allocation   finally   made   by   this
committee is binding on both the employers and
the employees and any violation thereof and non
implementation of said allocation be reported to
Supreme Court for remedial/Punitive action.”
7.8. After   the   Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020,   a
member   of   the   Sub­Committee   of   Andhra   Pradesh
power   utilities   sent   a   letter   dated   26.06.2020   as
compliance report. By the said letter, 119 employees,
who were dropped from the list of incoming employees
from   Telangana   State   power   utilities   to   Andhra
Pradesh power utilities and further 50 names were
Page  39 of  54
dropped of employees in outgoing list of employees
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to   Telangana
State power utilities and 10 further employees were
relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for the
reasons mentioned therein.
After submission of the Concluding Report dated
20.06.2020 and follow­up action taken by the Andhra
Pradesh   Power   utilities,   number   of   miscellaneous
applications have been filed by Telangana State Power
Utilities, by several employees as well as employees’
associations.   The   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities
Generation Corporation prays for the following reliefs:
“a) Clarify that the Concluding Report dated 20­
06­2020   submitted   by   the   Hon’ble   One­Man
Committee is illegal and arbitrary, being contrary
to the Orders passed by this Hon’ble court and
the Final Report dated 26­12­2019 submitted by
the Hon’ble One­Man Committee. 
b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees and
242 employees  made  by the Hon'ble  One­Man
Committee as per Final Report dt. 26­12­2018,
(i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502 +242) to TS Power
Utilities and 655 from TS to AP Power utilities),
as Final in terms of the Order dt. 28.11.2018
passed in present Civil Appeal. c) Clarify that the
allocation of 4460 and 71 employees (4531) to TS
Power Utilities vide Final Report dt. 26.12.2019
and   Supplementary   Report   dt.   11.03.2020,   is
final   and   no   further   allocation   to   TS   Power
Page  40 of  54
Utilities is Permissible. 
d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far
as   Para   No.27,   authorizing   the   Member,   Subcommittee   of   AP   to   unilaterally   identify   and
allocate 584 employees to TS Power Utilities is
contrary to the orders dated 28­11­2018 in Civil
Appeal No.11435/2018.
e) Clarify the orders dated 28­11­2018 in Civil
Appeal   No.   11435   of   2018   passed   by   this
Hon'bIe Court; and
f) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be
deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court
in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present
case.”
7.9. Similar prayers were made by other Telangana Power
Utilities. That by a detailed order dated 7.12.2020,
this Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications
filed  by  the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities.  While
dismissing the respective Miscellaneous Applications
filed   by   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities   which
were dismissed after considering in detailed the rival
submissions/ objections against the final report dated
20.06.2020,   certain   observations   are   made   by   this
Court, which are very relevant while considering the
present application, which are as under:
Page  41 of  54
40.     We   may   further   observe   that   the   list   of   655
employees   submitted   by   Telangana   State
power utilities for allocation to Andhra Pradesh
power utilities has been approved by the OneMan Committee for which there is no dispute.
The   One­Man   Committee   has   undertaken
exercise to identify the list of 655 employees
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to   be
transferred to Telangana State power utilities.
The   proceeding   to   balance   the   number   of
employees from Telangana State power utilities
to Andhra Pradesh power utilities being 655,
we fail to understand that how the applicants
can   raise   the   issue   regarding   number   of
allocable employees to be considered by this
Court in these proceedings.
41. The submission which has been much pressed
by the learned counsel for the applicants is that
number   of  employees   allocated   to  Telangana
State power utilities is much more as compared
to   those   which   have   been   allocated   from
Telangana   State   power   utilities   to   Andhra
Pradesh   power   utilities.   The   applicants   have
repeatedly   in   their   application   and   their
objection before the One­Man Committee have
referred to 502 out of 1157, 242 self­relieved
employees and 71 spouse and medical cases
plus   584   which   have   been   permitted   to   be
identified by Member of Andhra Pradesh SubCommittee.   The   submission   is   that
502+242+71+584 becomes 1399, hence 1399
have been allocated to Telangana State power
utilities   as   against   655,   which   has   been
allocated from Telangana State power utilities
to   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities.   We   may
need to look into the above submission on the
basis of each figure claimed by the applicant.
42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to
the applicant is balance from 1157 by reducing
it by 655. The 502 figure as noted above, 1157
is the number of persons, which were initially
Page  42 of  54
relieved by Telangana State power utilities to
Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   unilaterally
which decision was set aside by the High Court
and was upheld  by this Court. Out of 1157
only   655   have   been   allocated   to   Andhra
Pradesh power utilities, which was approved
by Final Report dated 26.12.2019 of the OneMan   Committee.   How   allocation   of   502   is
claimed   when   they   are   the   employees,   who
remained   on   Telangana   State   without   they
being   allocated   to   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities apart from 655 from Telangana State to
Andhra Pradesh. Further employees working in
Telangana   State   were   allowed   to   remain   in
Telangana   State,   hence,   allocation   from
Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655
and addition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.
43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number
of   self­relieved   employees   from   Andhra
Pradesh to Telangana State. Admittedly, 242
employees are, thus, who got themselves selfrelieved   from   Andhra   Pradesh   without   there
being   any   order   or   without   there   being   any
direction   by   anyone.   These   242   employees
were   permitted   joining   by   Telangana   power
utilities   by   its   own.   These   242   employees
having never been allocated to nor being part of
any allocation   cannot  be  added  in  figure by
Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, which is
agreed spouse and medical ground cases by
both the parties. 71 is part of 655, which is
now being identified by Andhra Pradesh to be
allocated   to   Telangana   State.   By   taking   this
no.71   in   Supplementary   Report   permitting
Andhra Pradesh to identify only 584, thus, it is
only 584+71, i.e., 655 employees,  which are
now   being   sought   to   be   allocated   to   the
Telangana State by One Man Committee. We,
thus, do not find any merit in the contention of
the applicant that 1399 employees have been
allocated to Telangana State as against 655
allocated   from   Telangana   State   to   Andhra
Page  43 of  54
Pradesh.
46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165
was   considered   by   the   One­Man   Committee,
which is reflected from the Concluding Report
dated   20.06.2020.   The   above   objection   has
been   duly   considered   and   answered   by   the
One­Man Committee in paragraphs 25, 26, 27
and 28 of the Concluding Report, which is to
the following effect:­
“25. The second submission on behalf of
TS is that with the Supplementary Report,
this Committee had Identified total 2165
employees   in   the   list   given   to   AP   Sub
Committee   member   for   proposing
allocation   from   that   list.   It   is   urged   on
behalf of TS, that allocation list proposed
by AP is not out of 2165 listed employees
with   the   Supplementary   Report   of   this
Committee. 
26. It is true, as urged on behalf of TS,
that with the Supplementary Report, this
Committee had identified 2165 employees
bused on modality Nos. 5 which requires
consideration   of   every   employee   for   his
home district and his adjustment as far as
possible in the State in which his home
district falls.
27.   This   Committee   has   to   be   open   to
correction.   The  Committee  is  also  of  the
view   that   modality   No.   V   alone   is   not
decisive and modalities no. I to IV are to
be cumulatively  taken into consideration
and   applied   to   make   allocation   in
proportion to the available posts in each
Company in the Two States. TS side has
accepted that 114 employees from out of
584 employees proposed for allocation by
A.P to T.S are included in 2165 employees
identified   by   this   Committee   in   the   lint
Page  44 of  54
annexed with Supplementary Report. The
remaining 470 employees (falling outside
2165   employees   identified   with   the
supplementary report) have been proposed
by  A.P   for   T.S  in   the  report   of   the  Sub
Committee   Member.   The   justification
shown is that it is to match the number of
employees   with   the   available   posts   in
various companies.
28. In the above circumstances, mentioned
above, this Committee finds the Allocation
Lists   company­wise   and   post­wise
proposed by AP deserves approval and it
is so approved.”
48. Now,   one   more   objection   of   the   applicants,
which needs to be noticed is the objection that
even the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020
is not final report and Sub­Committee Member
of   Andhra   Pradesh   has   been   authorised   to
modify   the   list.   Applicants   have   referred   to
direction   Nos.  I,  II  and   III  of   the  Concluding
Report, which is to the following effect:­
I. In addition to the Directions contained in
Para   21   of   the   Supplementary   Report   of
this Committee regarding retired employees
on both sides, it is further directed, that in
both   the   States,   employees   who   have
attained or will be attaining 58 Years of
age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the
allocation process and their names in the
Allocation Lists will be removed.
II. In the allocation process of the present
dimension and undertaken after 5 years
delay, it is not possible for the Committee
to  satisfy  individual  needs and comforts
and service prospects of every employee.
The allocation process has been finalized
on laid down principles contained in the
modalities   and   elbow   room,   wherever
Page  45 of  54
permissible,   in   the   modalities   has   been
given   effect   to.   The   committee   however
directs the Sub Committee member of AP to
re­examine   any   left­out   spouse   and
medical  cases and every attempt should
be made to accommodate them in the state
of their option.
III.   All   SC/ST   employees   cases   be
reexamined to accommodate them as per
modality VIII in the State where they are
notified as SCs or STs so as not to affect
their future service growth.
49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One
Man Committee that those who have attained
or will be attaining 58 Years of age in the year
2020 will be kept out of the allocation process
and their names in the Allocation Lists will be
removed.   In   Supplementary   Report   in
paragraph   21,   the   One­Man   Committee   has
stated:­
“21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all
retired employees between years 2014 to 2020
in each Power Utility in each State need not be
displaced only for pensioner benefits payable
to them.” 
50. The above indicates that both the parties had
agreed before the One­Man Committee that all
retired employees between years 2014 to 2020
in each power utility in each State need not be
displaced.   Thus,   the   above   was   agreement
between both the parties before the One­Man
Committee and direction No.I only an extension
of the said agreement, i.e., whoever shall be
attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall be kept
out of allocation process. As per paragraph 21
of the Supplementary Report, those, who retire
till then were already kept out of the allocation
and the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be
said to be unreasonable. The allocation process
Page  46 of  54
being   not   yet   finalised   and   awaiting
finalisation for last several years, those who
retire   either   in   Telangana   State   or   Andhra
Pradesh   has   rightly   been   decided   not   to   be
displaced only for the purpose of shouldering
pensionary   liability.   The   direction   No.I   is
equitable.
51. The   applicants   further   submit   that   after   the
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 by letter
dated   26.06.2020,   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities   have   struck   119   names   from   the
incoming   655   list   from   the   Telangana   State
power   utilities   to   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities.   We   are   of   the   view   that   the   said
dropping is only consequential to the decision
of   the   One­Man   Committee   as   reflected   in
paragraph   21   of   Supplementary   Report   and
direction No.I of Concluding Report. The Andhra
Pradesh power utilities have also deleted 50
names from the list of 584 employees outgoing
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to
Telangana   State   power   utilities,   which   was
again   in   compliance   of   the   One­Man
Committee’s decision. Any consequential action
taken in pursuance of the Concluding Report
cannot be said to be not contemplated by the
final Concluding Report or cannot be said to be
an   open   ended   report.   The   consequence   of
Concluding Report has to be taken to its logical
ends. Further, 10 employees have been added
by direction Nos. II and the reasons have been
given   in   the   letter   dated   26.06.2020   for
relieving them, which is again consequence of
direction Nos.I and II. We, thus, are of the view
that the One­Man Committee has considered all
materials   and   objections   placed   before   it   by
both sides including the representation of the
employees   and   employees   organisations
submitted from time to time. The process which
was initiated by submitting Final Report dated
26.12.2019   was   supplemented   by
Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 and
Page  47 of  54
Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The OneMan Committee being aware of all objections
and   having   taken   a   conscious   decision   to
finalise the allocation between two States, we
do not find any such error in the process which
may warrant any clarification or direction by
this   Court.   We   may   further   notice   that   the
exercise   undertaken   by   the   One­Man
Committee is to allocate 655 from Telangana
State   to   Andhra   Pradesh   and   same   number
from   Andhra   Pradesh   to   Telangana   State.
Apart   from   the   above   two   allocations,   other
personnel,   who   were   working   in   Telangana
State and Andhra Pradesh were not disturbed
by allocation.
52. Learned counsel for the applicants have also
taken exception to reciprocity of 655 number.
We   do   not   find   that   there   is   any   error   in
reciprocity.   The   One­Man   Committee   took   a
decision that when 655 employees are coming
from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh, same
number   should   go   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Telangana   State.   In   the   Concluding   Report,
final list  has been annexed, which is utilitywise and personnel­wise, which is clear and
unambiguous. We, thus, do not find any merit
in   the   Miscellaneous   Applications   filed   by
Telangana State power utilities being M.A. Nos.
1286,   1290,   1292   and   1291,   which   are
dismissed.”
8.0. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that this Court
specifically observed and held that the Final Report
dated   26.12.2019   submitted   by   the   One   Man
Committee   along   with   allocation   list   is   final   and
conclusive   and   is   binding   to   both   the   States   and
Page  48 of  54
respective   Power   Utilities   viz.   Telangana   Power
Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities. The only
exception was with respect to those employees who
attained the age of 58 years in the year 2020. Those
employees with the consent of the respective Power
Utilities were kept out of allocation process. It is to be
noted that the respective applicants – 84 petitioners
figured   in   the   final   list   prepared   by   One   Man
Committee.   The   names   of   the   petitioners   are   duly
mentioned in the said list of the One Man Committee
Report which  is prepared Utilities  wise. Out of 84
petitioners and as per the Final List of 28 petitioners
had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 petitioners had to
be absorbed in TS Transco and 21 petitioners had to
be   absorbed   in   TS   Discoms.     As   observed   herein
above, the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
have   already   relieved   respective   petitioners   and
thereafter   they   are   no   more   continued   with   their
erstwhile employers – Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
respectively.   Therefore,   once   the   names   of   the   84
petitioners figured in the Final List prepared by the
Page  49 of  54
One Man Committee and the Final Report has been
accepted and approved by this Court and it is directed
that both the States and their respective State Power
Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One
Man   Committee   and   Final   List   prepared   and
communicated with the Supplementary Report / Final
Report, thereafter any deviation from the same would
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions
issued by this Court. At this stage, it is required to be
noted   that   in   the   earlier   order,   this   Court   has
specifically   observed   and   made   it   clear   that   the
decision of the One Man Committee shall be final and
binding on all the parties including the Power Utilities
Companies of the two States as well as employees and
shall be executed by all the parties as an order of this
Court.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   the   respective
subsequent office orders dated 17.12.2020 (issued by
the TS Genco), office order dated 18.12.2020 (issued
by the   TS Transco), office order dated 18.12.2020
( issued by the TSNPDCL) and the office order dated
19.12.2020 (issued by the TSSPDCL) are just contrary
Page  50 of  54
to the directions issued by this Court and contrary to
the Supplementary Report / Final Report submitted
by the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 which
would   tantamount   to   willful   disobedience   of   the
directions issued by this Court. Again, the Telangana
State Power Utilities have raised the same issues with
respect to the Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality,
which were earlier raised before this court by filing
respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came
to   be   dismissed   by   this   court   vide   order   dated
7.12.2020. Thereafter, to raise the same objections /
issues again by the Telangana State Power Utilities
would   tantamount   to   willful   disobedience   of   the
directions   issued   by   this   Court.     Telangana   State
Power Utilities cannot be permitted to raise the same
objections   /   issues   again   and   again,   which   were
earlier raised before this Court and this Court held
against   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities.   There
must   be  an   end   to   a   litigation.   By   permitting   the
Telangana   State   Power   Utilities   and   /or   any   other
parties   to   raise   the   issues   /   objections   again   and
Page  51 of  54
again,   the   object   and   purpose   of   constituting   One
Man Committee by this Court would be frustrated.
This Court purposefully directed to constitute the One
Man   Committee   consisting   of   Mr.   Justice   D   M
Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this Court to put an
end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of
the employees and other disputes with respect to the
respective Power Utilities of both the States. It is very
unfortunate   that   the   State   of   Telangana   and
Telangana Power Utilities have continued to re­agitate
the   issues,   which   are   already   held   against   them
earlier.
9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
we hold the respective Telangana Power Utilities for
willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment
and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 in
MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018
and other allied Miscellaneous Applications and we
hold them guilty for the contempt for the same, for
which, they are liable to be suitably punished. At this
Page  52 of  54
stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   observed
herein above, the petitioners are already relieved by
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities since long and
because of the aforesaid office orders the respective
petitioners are not permitted to join in the respective
Telangana Power Utilities and their future is at stake
and they are without any salary from the date they
are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power
Utilities.   Before   we   pass   any   further   order   on   the
sentence   /   punishment,   we   give   one   additional
opportunity   to   the   respective   Telangana   Power
Utilities   i.e.   TS   Genco,   TS   Transco,   TSSPDCL   and
TSNPDCL to comply with the directions issued by this
Court   in   the   final   judgment   and   order   dated
7.12.2020 and Concluding Final Report submitted by
the   One   Man  Committee  dated  20.06.2020   and  to
absorb all the respective petitioners in the respective
Telangana Power Utilities / establishment as per the
list approved by the One Man Committee which would
have a direct bearing on the punishment / sentence
to be imposed. We give further two weeks’ time to
Page  53 of  54
respective Telangana Power Utilities / Corporation to
absorb the petitioners. We also direct the respective
Telangana Power Utilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco,
TSSPDCL   and   TSNPDCL   to   pay   salary   and   other
service benefits to the petitioners from the day they
are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power
Utilities, to be implemented within two weeks.  
Put up on 31.10.2022 for further order. 
…………………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
New Delhi,                                   (A.S. BOPANNA)
October 11, 2022.
Page  54 of  54

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर