Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (Tsgenco) vs Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

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 One-Man Committee along with the concluding report – Various Miscellaneous applications were filed – There were various objections against the One-Man Committee report – Held: The One-Man Committee being aware of all objections and having taken a conscious decision to finalise the allocation between two States, there is no error in the process which may warrant any clarification or direction – Applicants have taken exception to reciprocity of 655 number – There is no error in reciprocity – The One-Man 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 was annexed, which is utilitywise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous – Thus, power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report. Service Law – Allocation of employees – Andhra Pradesh Reorganisaiton Act, 2014 – ss.3,4 and 82 – Challenge to allocation done by One-Man Committee – Held: In the instant case, the OneMan Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been finalised by the One-Man Committee – Insofar as the allocation made by the OneMan Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or officer is entertainable, it was further clarified that the One-Man Committee having completed the process of allocation, the said allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before any forum.

Disposing of the Miscellaneous Applications, the Court

HELD: 1. One 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 Sub-Committee 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. Now, taking note of 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. According to the Supplementary report, both the parties had agreed before the One-Man 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 One-Man 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 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. [Paras 48, 49 and 50][1025-A-B, F-G; 1026-A-C]

2. The applicants submitted 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. This Court is of the view that the said dropping is only consequential to the decision of the One-Man 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 One-Man 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. This Court, thus, is of the view that the One-Man 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 Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The One-Man Committee being aware of all objections and having taken a conscious decision to finalise the allocation between two States, this Court does not find any such error in the process which may warrant any clarification or direction by this Court. This Court may further notice that the exercise undertaken by the One-Man 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. [Para 51][1026-D-H; 1027-A-B]

3. The applicants have also taken exception to reciprocity of 655 number. This Court does not find that there is any error in reciprocity. The One-Man 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 utility-wise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. This Court, thus, does 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. [Para 52][1027-B-D]

4. With regard to other M.A.s, this Court makes it clear that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been finalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocation made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or officer is entertainable, this Court clarifies that the One-Man Committee having completed the process of allocation, the said allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before any forum. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in different M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings and employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposed of accordingly. [Para 57][1029-B-C]

Telangana Judges Association v. Union of India (2018) SCC Online SC 1729 – referred to.