IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, M.S.K. JAISWAL, JJ.
P.B.Karunakar and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Department of Energy, Government of Telangana, Secre - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.16330, 16504, 16660, 16849, 16886, 16984, 17059, 17061, 17141, 17164, 17178, 17182, 17198, 17199, 17202, 17207, 17209, 17210, 17212, 17213, 17383, 17481, 17714, 17963, 17994, 18153, 19180 and 30013 of 2015; 37417, 38634 and 40438 of 2017
Decided On : 02-02-2018
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 - Reorganisation Act - Sections 68 to 75, 53, 68(1), 76, 77, 82, 92 - Electricity Act 2003 - Section 185 - Employment and Service matter - Allocation of employees of power sector – Residuary - Well as the consequential orders passed - Declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Reorganisation Act and also without jurisdiction, and for a consequential direction to the TSTRANSCO to constitute a joint committee along with the petitioner as ordained in the Meeting held - Consequential proceedings issued in TGOO - Declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Reorganisation Act as well as the Minutes - Inter se parties, set aside the same and to direct the Union of India to issue necessary directions - Abide by the Minutes – Aspects - It is not in dispute that except the assets situated in the transferred Mandals and Villages referred to above, the division in any other manner is not involved with regard to the NPDCL Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, there cannot be allocation of employees between the said Company and the Distribution Companies of the State of Andhra Pradesh except to the extent of the staff working in those transferred. The final allocation with respect to those employees also needs to be done following the modalities that may be determined by the Corporate bodies of both the States - writ petitions disposed.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
1. This batch of writ petitions involves disputes pertaining to allocation of employees of the power sector undertakings (for short, the power utilities) in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The disputes arose in the wake of the division of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, namely, the State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to the details of the writ petitions hereunder.
3. The APTRANSCO filed W.P. No.17963 of 2015 aggrieved by Letter dt.6.6.2015 of the Government of Telangana as well as the consequential orders passed by the TSTRANSCO on 9.6.2015 and 10.6.2015 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Reorganisation Act and also without jurisdiction, and for a consequential direction to the TSTRANSCO to constitute a joint committee along with the petitioner as ordained in the Meeting held on 20.3.2015 in the presence of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The APGENCO filed W.P. No.17994 of 2015 aggrieved by Letter dt.6.6.2015 of the Government of Telangana, and the consequential proceedings issued in TGOO No.92/CGM/A, IS & ERP)/2015, dt.10.6.2015 of the TSGENCO and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Reorganisation Act as well as the Minutes dt.20.3.2015 of inter se parties, and set aside the same and to direct the Union of India to issue necessary directions to the State of Telangana and TSGENCO to abide by the Minutes dt.20.3.2015 in all aspects. W.P. Nos.18153 of 2015 is filed by APSPDCL and APEPDCL to declare the action of State of Telangana, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL in issuing proceedings vide Letter dt.6.6.2015 of the Government of Telangana and consequential orders dt.09.6.2015 and 10.06.2015 of TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL, as illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Reorganisation Act and to direct TSSPDCL to constitute a Joint Committee along with the petitioners as ordained in the meeting held on 20.3.2015 in the presence of the Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to determine the modalities for division of the employees.
4. W.P. No.37417 of 2017 is filed by one of the employees of the APTRANSCO to declare the action of the respondents in not declaring her as local candidate belonging to the State of Telangana and also to declare the action of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition in not relieving her to join in the TSTRANSCO, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a direction to the said respondents to relieve her forthwith and also for a direction to the TSTRANSCO to permit her to join duty in TSTRANSCO, Hyderabad. W.P. Nos.38634 and 40438 of 2017 have been filed by employees, 46 in number in all, of APSPDCL to declare the action of the TSSPDCL and its Chief General Manager (HRD) in not allowing them to submit the options on par with other employees in terms of the order dt..3.11.2017 in W.P. No.16504 of 2015 and batch as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the order dt.17.06.2014 in W.P. No.15678 of 2014 and consequently to direct the TSSPDCL and its CGM(HRD) to permit them to submit their options on par with other employees.
For convenience, the employees who filed the writ petitions are referred to as the petitioners/employees.
5. The background facts leading to these disputes are summarized hereunder: In the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) was created under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Supply Act). The Board was carrying on the activities of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity to its consumers. The employees connected with all these activities were working under the administrative control of the Board in the various parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of Andhra Pradesh was
State, represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai v. N.S. Gnaneswaran
Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
Bhim Singhji and others v. Union of India
B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P.
Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation and others
Babu Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das
A.V.S. Narasimha Rao v. State of A.P.
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand
Charu Khurana v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava : 1958 SCR 533 : AIR 1957 SC 912
State of M.P. v. Pradeep Kumar : (2000) 7 SCC 372
Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee: AIR 1976 SC 263
State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan : (1976) 2 SCC 895 : AIR 1975 SC 2190
State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya : 1961 (2) SCR 679 : AIR 1961 SC 751
May George v. Tahsildar: (2010) 13 SCC 98 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 774
Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay: AIR 1952 SC 181
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board
V.K. Kangan v. State of Mysore: (1976) 2 SCC 895 : AIR 1975 SC 2190
Lachmi Narayan v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 953
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone: AIR 1980 SC 303
Balwant Singh v. Anand Kumar Sharma : (2003) 3 SCC 433
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd .: (2003) 2 SCC 111
Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar : AIR 2004 SC 2036
May George v. Tahsildar : (2010) 13 SCC 98 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 774
Ram Deen Maurya (Dr.) v. State of U.P. : (2009) 6 SCC 735
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.