Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1914
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd (tsgenco) - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S).11435 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 9138 of 2018) with C.A. No. 11436 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9243 of 2018, C.A. No. 11437 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9369 of 2018, C.A. No. 11439 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9710 of 2018, C.A. Nos. 11441-11443 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11128-11130 of 2018, C.A. No. 11438 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 9289 of 2018, C.A. No. 11440 of 2018 @ SLP(C) No. 11123 of 2018, C.A. No. 11444-11452 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18613-18621 of 2018, C.A. Nos. 11462-11468 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18633-18639 of 2018, C.A. Nos. 11453-11458 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18622-18627 of 2018, C.A. Nos. 11459-11461 of 2018 @ SLP(C) Nos. 18628-18630 of 2018
Decided On : 28-11-2018
V. Giri, Sr. Advocate P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate G. Vidhyasagar, SR. Advocate Y. Rama Rao, Advocate D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate G. Vidyasagar Sr. Advocate Ms. Suchitra Hrangkhawl, Advocate T.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate D. Mahesh Babu, AOR B. Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate Sravan Kumar, Advocate Satya Mitra, AOR Harsh Parashar, AOR Aman Pandey, Advocate Mahabir Singh, SR. Advocate Sarvan Kumar, Advocate Gagandip Sharma, Advocate Amit K. Nain, AOR, for the Appellants; Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate R. Balasubramanian, Advocate Ms. Pooja Dhar, Advocate B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Advocate B. Adinarayana R., Sr. Advocate Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate Geet Ahuja, Advocate S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Advocate Kapish Seth, Advocate Ms. Deepika Kaliya, Advocate V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate Ajit Wagh, Advocate Apoorv Shukla, Advocate Abhijit Sengupta, AOR P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate Prashant Tyagi, Advocate M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Ravi Shankar Jhandalaya, Advocate Pulkit Tare, AOR D. Kumaran, Advocate Ravi Shankar Jhandhiyaln, Advocate Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Prabhakar Parnam, Advocate K.L. Sastry, Advocate M. Nageswara Rao, Advocate I.V. Kasyap, Advocate M. Ramprasad, Advocate D.V. Raghuvamsy, Advocate, for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to determine modalities for the division of employees between successor States in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the appointment of a Committee to make a final and binding decision on the matter.
Headnote:
ORDER - State Reorganisation - Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 - Section 82 - Allocation of Employees - High Court quashed relieving orders by State of Telangana - Directed modalities for division of employees - Court upheld High Court's decision - Appointed Committee to determine modalities for distributing personnel - Committee's decision to be final and binding
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the allocation of employees of Public Sector Undertakings between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh following the reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of Telangana issued relieving orders for employees to join their counterparts in Andhra Pradesh, leading to writ petitions challenging the orders. The High Court quashed the relieving orders and directed the determination of modalities for the division of employees.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision to quash the relieving orders and direct the determination of modalities for the division of employees was upheld by the Court. The Court appointed a Committee, headed by a former Judge, to determine the modalities for distributing the personnel, and its decision was made final and binding on all parties.
Issues: The main issue was the unilateral relieving of employees by the State of Telangana and the failure to determine modalities for the division of employees between the two successor States as required by Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the principles of law applied by the High Court and emphasized the need to finally settle the allocation of employees in accordance with the Act. The Court appointed a Committee to determine the modalities for distributing the personnel, and its decision was made final and binding on all parties.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the High Court's decision, appointed a Committee to determine the modalities for distributing the personnel, and made its decision final and binding on all parties.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Applications for intervention/impleadment are allowed. On the reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh with its bifurcation with two States namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh vide the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,2014'), the question that has arisen in the present appeals is about the allocation of the employees of Public Sector Undertakings between the two States. In these appeals, we are concerned with the employees of four Public Sector Undertakings in power sector. These include two power generation companies and two power distribution companies. In view of the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the State of Telangana has formed its two power generation companies. Likewise, similar exercise is undertaken by the State of Andhra Pradesh as well. Accordingly, for State of Telangana following power utility companies have been formed.
1. Telangana Power Generation Corporation ('TSGENCO')
2. Transmission Corporation of Telangana ('TSTRANSCO')
3. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana ('TSSPDCL')
4. Northern Power Distribution Corporation of Telangana ('TSNPDCL')
3. For the State of Andhra Pradesh the names of these companies are:
1. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.(APGENCO)
2. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APTRANSCO)
3. Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APEPDCL)
4. Southern Power Distribution Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (APSPDCL)
4. The provision for allocation of the employees in the aforesaid power utilities in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was to be done in accordance with Section 82 of the Act, 2014. This provision reads as under:
"Section 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."
5. As is clear from the above, the employees at State Public Sector Undertakings (which would include the aforesaid power utility companies) were to continue to function in such undertakings etc. for a period of one year. The mandate of the aforesaid provision was that during this period of one year the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States. Unfortunately, this has not been achieved even when more than four years have been elapsed after coming into force of the Act, 2014.
6. Be that as it may, as far as present dispute is concerned, it arose when the State of Telangana issued Lr. No. 686/HRA.A1/2015 dated 06.06.2015 approving guidelines/modalities for final allocation of employees based on nativity of employees as per the service Register. Acting upon the said letter the power utility companies of the State of Telangana issued relieving orders in respect of 1157 employees and directed them to join their counterparts of the utility companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. These employees filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the aforesaid relieving orders. All these writ petitions were heard together and have been decided and disposed of vide common impugned judgment dated 02.02.2018. The High Court has quashed the relieving orders by declaring the same as unconstitutional and unenforceable and has also given certain directions at the end of its judgment which are re-produced below:
"(i) The impugned orders are declared as unconstitutional and unenforceable and they are accordingly set aside.
(ii) The TRANSCOs and GENCOs of the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and the TSSPDCL and APSPDCL shall either continue the existing joint committee or constitute a
