The court established that Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act governs the allocation of employees in public sector undertakings, overriding the applicability of Section 77.

JUDGMENT

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. These appeals are against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 21.11.2019 dismissing the writ appeals filed by the appellant herein and upholding the order of the single judge of the High Court allowing the respondents’ writ petitions and quashing orders repatriating them to their parental zones. Relevant and necessary facts are as follows.

2. The State of Telangana was formed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Hereinafter “the Act”] comprises of territories mentioned therein, and by virtue of Section 4, remaining the territories constituted the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bifurcation of states came into effect on 02.06.2014 and this is declared to be the appointed date under the Act.

2.1 Prior to bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRC) [Hereinafter “APSRTC”] functioned in the unified State of Andhra Pradesh. After state reorganisation, the Corporation was bifurcated and the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) [Hereinafter “TSRTC”], respondent no. 2 herein, was formed w.e.f. 02.06.2015 (appointed date for the Corporations) to function in the State of Telangana, while APSRTC continued to function in the residual part of State of Andhra Pradesh.

2.2 The respondents in these appeals were Class III and Class IV employees who were working as conductors, drivers and shramiks. They were appointed between 2014 to 2017 in districts, and more particularly zones carved out under the Presidential Order, read with Article 371D of the Constitution, that formed part of Telangana, which areas now fall within the State of Telangana. These respondents were temporarily deputed to zones which now form part of the bifurcated State of Andhra Pradesh. The orders of deputation were extended by way of several notifications issued from time to time, some deputations were made even after the bifurcation of the Corporations, pending finalisation of guidelines for permanent allocation of employees. We may mention at this very stage that the issue in these appeals is about validity of the repatriation orders that were passed by the appellant APSRTC, relegating the respondents to the zones of their initial appointment.

3. Returning to the chronology of facts, it needs to be noted that on 18.06.2015 the Government of India reconstituted the APSRTC Board of Directors with members from the central government, State of Andhra Pradesh, and State of Telangana to determine the permanent allocation of employees between the Corporations. On 16.08.2017, the Board prepared a detailed Agenda Note, which was approved on 24.08.2017. The Agenda Note sets out the modalities for allocation of state cadre, zonal and regional cadre of employees of the Corporations.

4. Before the finalisation of the Agenda Note, the appellant issued a notification dated 08.06.2017 repatriating employees who were on deputation, including the present respondents, to their parent cadres in TSRTC, i.e., to the zones in which they were initially appointed. The respondents challenged this notification and the consequent repatriation orders passed by Depot Managers by filing writ petitions before the High Court.

5. The writ petitions were heard and allowed by the Single Judge by an order dated 10.11.2017 on the ground that, upon bifurcation of the two Corporations the guidelines for allocation of employees between them had not been finalised. Thus, the single judge set aside the repatriation orders.

6. The appellant filed the writ appeals and brought the Agenda Note dated 16.08.2017 and its approval dated 24.08.2017 to the notice of the division bench. Taking note of the guidelines for allocation formulated by both Corporations, the High Court passed an interim order dated 18.04.2018 suspending the order of the single judge and directing the respondents to report in their parent zones under the TSRTC, where they were initial