Contempt of Court– Reorganization of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Telangana was formed –Government orders were issued for Distribution, Generation Companies and Transmission Corporation whereby their assets and liabilities 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 could not arrive at any consensus with regard to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel–Power utilities of Telangana on the principle of nativity unilaterally relieved employees whose service records mentioned them as resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and those who belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana were permitted to join– Impugned action set aside by High Court – Order upheld by Supreme Court, however, noticing that two States were not able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two States, One Man Committee consisting of a former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed – It was made clear that the decision of the One Man Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties – Present contempt petition filed by the 84 petitioners-erstwhile employees of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court– Held: Once the names of the 84 petitioners figured in the Final List prepared by the One Man Committee and the Final Report was accepted and approved by Supreme Court and it was 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 ORS.
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by Supreme Court –The respective subsequent office orders issued by the respective Telangana Power Utilities i.e.the TS Genco, TS Transco, the TSNPDCL and the TSSPDCL are contrary to the directions issued by Supreme Court and the Supplementary Report/Final Report submitted by the One Man Committee which would tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by Supreme 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 Supreme Court by filing respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came to be dismissed by 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 Supreme Court –It was purposefully directed to constitute the One Man Committee consisting of a Former Judge of Supreme Court to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of the employees and other disputes w.r.t the respective Power Utilities of both the States –Respective Telangana Power Utilities are guilty of contemptfor willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court–Additional opportunity given to them to comply with the directions issued 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 –This would have a direct bearing on the punishment/sentence to be imposed– Salary and other service benefits also to be paid to the petitioners from the day they are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited 2020 SCC Online SC 995 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.