Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
P. Ramu - Appellant
Versus
The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 772 and 3290 of 2020
Decided On : 08-12-2020
For the Appellant :K.R. Srinivas, Advocate
For the Respondents:N. Vasudeva Reddy, Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocates, A. Ravi Babu, SC and P. Govind Reddy, Special Counsel
The court emphasized the importance of seniority over nativity in employee allocation and held that the allocation based solely on nativity violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Headnote:
NATIVITY - Employee Allocation - Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014, Section 68, 71, 82 - The court considered the issue of employee allocation between successor states under the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014. The court found that the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not follow the guidelines framed by its Board, gave primacy to nativity over seniority, and erred in confirming provisional allocation as permanent. The court held that the allocation based solely on nativity violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the appointed day was incorrectly taken as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014. The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the issue of employee allocation between successor states under the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014. The petitioners, P. Ramu and B.V. Rao, were provisionally allotted to different successor corporations based on nativity. The court found that the allocation was made solely on the basis of nativity, ignoring seniority and options exercised by the employees. The court also found that the appointed day was incorrectly taken as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014. The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not follow the guidelines framed by its Board, gave primacy to nativity over seniority, and erred in confirming provisional allocation as permanent. The court held that the allocation based solely on nativity violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the appointed day was incorrectly taken as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014. The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Issues: The court considered the issue of employee allocation between successor states under the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014. The court found that the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not follow the guidelines framed by its Board, gave primacy to nativity over seniority, and erred in confirming provisional allocation as permanent. The court held that the allocation based solely on nativity violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the appointed day was incorrectly taken as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014. The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not follow the guidelines framed by its Board, gave primacy to nativity over seniority, and erred in confirming provisional allocation as permanent. The court held that the allocation based solely on nativity violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the appointed day was incorrectly taken as 02.06.2015 instead of 02.06.2014. The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Final Decision: The court directed the allocation of the petitioners to the respective successor corporations and held that the A.P. Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Services Act, 1997 cannot be invoked as it is overridden by the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
ORDER :
1. Common issue arises for consideration in both these Writ Petitions relating to the same parties, and so, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 772 of 2020 is one P. Ramu who was directly recruited as Depot Manager in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. At the time of filing W.P. No. 772 of 2020 he was working as Divisional Manager, Sangareddy Depot of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (T.S.R.T.C.) in Telangana State which was carved out of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 under the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act').
3. Sri P. Ramu contends that his son was undergoing treatment at C.M.C., Vellore, Chittoor District and that his father was diagnosed with Breast Cancer in 2017 and was taking treatment in V.R. Multi-Speciality Hospital, Kurnool District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. So he seeks allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 3290 of 2020 is Sri B.V. Rao and he was working as Controller of Stores in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) in Vijayawada of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. The wife of Sri B.V. Rao is employed in United Technologies, Hyderabad and his daughter was studying II Year Intermediate at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana.
5. As stated above, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 pursuant to the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014.
6. The erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of the composite State along with other Government Companies and Corporations was mentioned at Item No. 26 of the IX Schedule to the above Act.
7. Part VIII of the Act dealt with 'Companies' and 'Corporations' specified in IX Schedule.
8. Section 68 of the Act provided that the Companies and Corporations specified in the IX Schedule constituted for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of Section 68. Sub-Section (2) of Section 68 provided for apportionment between the successor States of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Companies and Corporations referred to in IX Schedule.
9. Section 71 of the Act empowered the Central Government to issue directions for each of the companies specified in the IX Schedule (a) regarding the division of interests and shares of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in the Company between the successor States and (b) requiring the re-constitution of the Board of Directors of the Company so as to give adequate representation to the successor States.
10. Part VIII of the Act dealt with provisions as to services and Section 82 thereof dealt with employees of State Public Sector undertakings, Corporations and other Autonomous Bodies. Sec. 82 directs that 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, Corporations or Autonomous Body 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.
11. Pending finalization of modalities for allocation of employees of undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to the two successor States/their successor Corporations, a decision was taken to demarcate allocable posts and to provisionally allot the State-Cadre employees in order to have functional demarcation and smooth functioning in both States. Such provisional allotment was made on the basis of local status of the employees (educational certificates concerned).
12. P. Ramu was allocated provisionally to serve the Corporation in the State of Telangana as
