Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Kiranmai vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2025
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023
+WP No.9996/2021
Between:
#G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023
% 24.01.2025
+WP No.9996/2021
# Between:
#G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao
Sri Ghanta Sridhar
Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy
Sri K. Raghuveer
! Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General
Sri M. Vijay Kumar
Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy
Sri Venkata Rao
Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu
Sri Surendra Rao
Sri Srnivasa Rao Madiraju
Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Sri C. Srinivasa Baba
3
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred: 1. MANU/SC/0776/1999
2. MANU/SC/0644/1987
3. MANU/SC/8149/2006
4. AIR 1968 SC 850
5. (1998) 2 SCC 523
6. (1982) 2 SSC 116
7. (2022)1 SCC 352
8. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218
9. 1975 (2) SCC 553
10. 1981 4 SCC 130
11. 1982 (2) SCC 116
12. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218
13. 1987 (4) SCC 566
14. 1998 (2) SCC 523
15. 2000(1) SCC 644
16 2006 (8) SCC 129
17 (1991) 2 SCC 295
18 (1967) SLR 753
19 AIR 1962 SC 1044
20 (2022) 1 SCC 352
4
APHC010181552021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
((Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 9996
9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023
WP No.996 of 2021
Between:
G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
5
1. GHANTA SRIDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL)
2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
4. V R REDDY KOVVURI
5. V V SATISH
The Court made the following:
COMMONORDER :
As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. The WP Nos.9996, 11089 of 2021 are filed challenging the Memo of the 2nd respondent in Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/DIR(TECH)/ GM(HR)/DGM/ PO(Adm)/ Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 unsettling petitioners' settled seniority basing upon the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer instead of taking into consideration of the Seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineer as the same is arbitrary and illegal.
3. Whereas WP No.11476 of 2021 is filed calling for the records including the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent Memo No CMD/CGM/HRD/JS/HR/GM/HR/DGM(Trg.)/JPO.I/D.No.337/21, dated 6 03.04.2021 of final integrated seniority list of Executive Engineers/Electrical of the 2nd respondent company is contrary to Rule 7(6)(c) of AP Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules 1999 as well as contrary to A.P.S.EB Special Service Regulation 10 of Part III Note iii & ivcontrary to Section 78 & 82 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, Tripartite Agreement dated 09.09.1997, the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for composite State of Andhra Pradesh W.P.No. 10726 of 2002 & batch, dated 30.11.2004 contrary to supplementary report of one man committee of Justice Dharmidhikari, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the same as illegal; and
4. W.P.No.29140 of 2023 is filed calling for all connected records including the impugned Proceedings of the 2ndRespondent in Memo No. CMD/CGM(HRD)/JS(HR)/GM(P)/DGM(P)/PO(P)/JPO.AI/D.No. 409/23, dated 31.08.2023 of tin integrated seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers/Electrical of the 2nd Respondent Company contrary to Rule 7(6)(e) of AP Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules 1999 as well as contra to Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Special Service Regulation 10 of Part III Note iii&iv, contrary to Section 78 & 82 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, Tripartite Agreement dated 09.09.1997, the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for composite State of Andhra Pradesh W.P.No. 10726 of 2002 & batch, dated 30.11.2004 contrary to supplementary report of one man committee of Justice Dharmidhikari, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the same as illegal.
7
5. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.11089 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
6. Brief facts of the case are that, initially all the writ petitioners appointed in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (AE) and all the employees including the petitioners' service were under the control of APSEB. Pursuant to introduction of electricity reforms, the A.P. State has enacted A.P. Electricity Reforms Act 1998 (for short "the Act"), which provided for formation of separate companies for Generation, Transmission, and Distribution by unbundling the activities of the board. Therefore, the APSEB was divided into A.P.Transmission Corporation and A.P. Generation Corporation with effect from 01.02.1999. The A.P.Genco was entrusted with the activity of power generation and A.P. Transco was with transmission, distribution and supply of electricity.It is stated that from 01.04.2000, the A.P. Transco was further unbundled with the incorporation of 4 distribution companies (i.e.,) Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company limited(APCPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company limited(APSPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company limited(APEPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company limited(APNPDCL) and thereby the activities of distribution and supply was vested with these companies, and the activity of transmission was retained with the AP Transco. The employees working under APSEB were allotted on permanent basis under the control of the 8 respective six companies and intimated the same to all the employees by order T.O.O (Per GM) Ms No. 161 dated 13.08.2002 with effect from17.08.2002 and all the employees are ceased to be the employees of the dissolved APSEB and the seniority lists prepared by APSEB in the cadre AE ceased to be in existence w.e.f. 17.08.2002 and from this date onwards, the employees of the board have become the employees of the respective companies which are independent in all respects and since the service conditions of all these employees are being governed by the respective service conditions of the independent companies. It is further stated the petitioners are allotted to APCPDCL which has the control over Hyderabad, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy, Kurnool and Ananthapur Districts. While the petitioners are working under this company (i.e.,) APCPDCL, the combined state of AP was bifurcated as two states i.e., A.P and Telengana. Telangana State was formed 10 districts of combined AP, and the remaining 13 Districts are residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter the Government in Combined State of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.24 Energy (CC) Department, dated 29.05.2014 reassigning the distribution business of Ananthapur and Kurnool Districts which fell within the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh under clause(c) of 12th schedule apart from reassigning the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile APCPDCL in 2 districts of Ananthapur and Kurnool, and various other measures were also taken such as reassigning of sanctioned posts in various offices (i.e.,) Circle 9 office, Divisional office, sub divisional office, etc., situated in the two districts i.e., Ananthapur and Kurnool to APSPDCL.
While the matter stood thus, the erstwhile APCPDCL issued proceedings to give effect to the G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.05.2014 vide C.O.O.CGM (HRD) Ms.No.318, dated 31.05.2014 providing that all the employees working in Ananthapur and Kurnool districts will continue in the same places till the final allotment of employees to the respective Discoms is completed. Various cadres of personnel were identified and they are provisionally allotted to their respective places of working on "Provisional order to serve" basis. Likewise the separate proceedings were issued in C.O.O.CGM(HRD) Ms.No.319 dated 01.06.2014 giving effect to the re- assignment of the sanctioned post in operational units in Ananthapur and Kurnool districts, and also allocation of posts in corporate office, to the APSPDCL.It is further stated that, after the bifurcation of the States,aJoint Committee has to be constituted for finalization of allocation of employees between the two states. The Telangana State Transco issued proceedings constituting a common committee of its own personnel to undertake the activities of collection of employees' data fixation of norms to establish the nativity and any other activity by the Chairman of the committee. Thereafter the power utilities in the State of Telangana identified 1157 employees working under the state power utilities, as per their nativity and issued relieving orders unilaterally. Questioning the said action of Telangana State power utilities, a batch of Writ Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble High 10 Court at Hyderabad in W.P No. 16330 of 2015 and batch. Initially interim orders were passed to continue the petitioners there in the power utilities of State of Telangana.It is further stated that even before finalization of the petitioners' seniority in APSPDCL, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms No. 41, dated 05.12.2019, bifurcated the APSPDCL into two separate entities, i.e APSPDCL (Tirupathi) for SPS Nellore, Chittoor, YSR Kadapa, Anathpuram, and Kurnool Districts and APCPDCL (Vijayawada) for Parkasam, Guntur, and Krishna Districts. Thereafter options were given to the concerned employees. Accordingly the 1st petitioner herein and other petitioner opted for APCPDCL (Vijayawada) and they are allotted to the said company S.O.O.(CGM_HRD) Ms.No.599 dated 11-09-2020. Further, after publication of provisional list, petitioners have submitted their objections regarding discrepancy in the seniority list which is to be fixed as on 02.06.2014 as per the Hon'ble One Man Committee (OMC) report and not as on 15.09.2020. It is further stated that the 2 ndrespondent sent intimation under letter dated 17.03.2021 stating that no specific objections are received. It is also stated that therein Final Seniority list will be prepared as per Regulation 26 of part II of APSEB service regulations as adopted by APCPDCL. This impugned final seniority list is directly in violation of the judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 10726/2002 & Batch, wherein this Hon'ble Court declared "The combined seniority list of APSEB allotted to the main successor AP TRANSCO, ceases to exist w.e.f. 17.08.2002 and the employees have been communicated in the 11 seniority list in the respective cadre in the respective corporations to which they were allotted and their entitlement to the said seniority for the purpose of promotion to the higher cadre. Therefore, they cannot claim any promotion based on the combined seniority list of APSEB". Hence the present writ petition.
7. This Court, vide order, dated 08.05.2024,in WP No.11089 of 2021, has granted status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained by all the parties with reference to the impugned proceedings dated 17.3.2021 for a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the same is being extended from time to time.
8. Later, during pendency of the present writ petitions, Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 in WP No.11089 of 2021 seeking to implead the respondents No.7 to 24 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2024.
9. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioners in W.P.No.11089 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e., WP Nos.9996, 11476 of 2021 and 29140 of 2023.
10. The counter affidavits have been filed in all the Writ Petitions.
11. In the Counter affidavit filed by the 4threspondent in W.P.No.11089 of 2021, while denying all the allegations made in the petitions, inter alia, it is stated that, the APCPDCL has issued integrated seniority list duly including 12 the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and after giving detailed replies to the employees who raised their objections, the final seniority list was communicated by the APCPDCL. At this stage, the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble High Court with a mollified intention to the rules and also creating unnecessary hurdles to the Management of APCPDCL.There is no specific mention in their absorption for fixation of seniority and also in G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.05.2014 and also concluding report of OMC. Further it is to state that, whether any difficulty arises while following the above regulation for fixation of seniority, the Appointing Authority is empowered for fixing the seniority as per Regulation 26(b) of APSEB Service Regulations, Part-II. Hence, there is no relevancy to this for Regulation 10 of APSEB Service Regulations, Part-III.As per Reg-26 of APSEB Service Regulations Part II and Committee report, the Management was taken a decision to take induction seniority to uniform and equalize all employees for not deprive their promotions. It is further stated that the final division of the employees and allotment was completed based on the OMC conclusion report dated 20.06.2020, the APCPDCL has issued provisional integrated seniority list duly including the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and a Committee was constituted to study the feasibility of the requests of the employees who raised their objections and to enable to communicate the final seniority list and after careful examination of the entire grievances/objections as submitted by the employees by the committee, within the boundaries of APSEB Service 13 Regulations as adopted by APCPDCL, employees were answered and the seniority was finalized and Final Integrated Seniority list was communicated accordingly.The employees allocated in each State to a particular Company will be considered on par with other employees, in accordance with the Service Rules and Regulations, for other service benefits including their due consideration for promotion. It is further stated that the APCPDCL has scrupulously followed the directions of Hon'ble Justice D.M. Dharmadhikar, who was issued certain directions in Supplementary report dated 11.3.2020 to the final report dated 26.12.2019 and that the APCPDCL, and their roles were included in APCPDCL, their lien and seniority is being maintained in APCPDCL, as per the seniority some of the employees allocated from the TS Power Utilities were promoted to the next higher cadre. At this stage, the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble High Court with a mollified intention, illegal, contrary to the rules and also creating unnecessary hurdles to the Management of APCPDCL. After through and deliberate discussions made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court upheld the OMC conclusion reported 20.06.2020.
It is further stated that, in pursuant to the above report, the final division of the employees and allotment was completed. Further it is stated that the petitioners were allotted based on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble One Man Committed and as per verdict passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide C.A No. 11435 of 2018. As they are mentioning in their affidavit regarding seniority, court cases and other was issued based First and Second Transfer Scheme 14 as per the provisions of AP Electricity Reforms Act 1998. The comparison between AP Electricity Reforms Act 1998 and AP Re-Organization Act 2014 is different. In view of the above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition.
12. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent in WP No.11089 of 2021, wherein, it is stated that, this Respondent was allotted to APSPDCL, whereas the writ petitioners were allotted to APCPDEL in pursuance of option exercised consequent to proceedings dated 13.08.2002. It is stated the writ petitioners were working in a district and separate entries called APCPDCL prior to 02.06.2014. It appears that they got promotion to the category of Divisional Engineer (DE) on 17.08.2002, 01.11.2006, 09.04.2009 and 11.09.2009 respectively. It is stated that the answering Respondents were working APSPDCL which is district and different from APCPDCL. The answering Respondents were promoted to the cadre of divisional engineer in September 2007, 01.04.2008 and 15.12.2008 respectively.No person of working in a particular unit can claim to be senior or superior to an employee in another unit. The chances of promotion in a particular unit differ from the chances of promotion in another unit. It is stated that there is no right to retain or claim continuation of chances of promotion. It is further stated that the petitioners do not figure among the personnel in various cadres of APCPDCL who were identified for being issued provisional order to serve in APCPDCL in terms of Goo CGM (HRD) Ms.No.318, dated 31.05.2014. It is stated that the petitioners havenarrated events which took place after 02.06.2014 viz issuing the orders relieving 1157 employees working in power utilities by the Govt. 15 TS, unilaterally. The Writ Petitioni.e.,W.P.No.16330/2015 field by such employees, a direction was given by the Hon'ble High court, C.A.No. 11435/2018 filed against order dated 02.02.2018 of the Hon'ble court, constitution of OM.C.-( Dharmadhikari J) the report of OMC dt. 26.12.2019, supplementing report dt. 11.03.2020 and final report dt. 20.06.2020 which among Respondents do not dispute. Further, the answering respondents do not dispute the directions, which were issued by the OMC Dharmadhikari. It is further stated that provisional seniority lists were issued in different division including the cadre of EEs. It is true that the final Seniority list in the case of EEs was issued on 17.3.2021. However the contribution received that settled Seniority is Unsettled is in correct. It is only an imagination of the petition. The Seniority List is in accordance with the GO.Ms.No.41 dated 05.12.2019. There is no illegality in it. The petitioners have voluntarily come to the new units of appointment, they cannot claim a special treatment. In view of the above facts and circumstances prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
13. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in WP No.9996 of 2021 while denying all the allegations made in the petitions submits that as per Direction VIII of the Supplementary Report of the One Man Committee, any disobedience or delay in complying with the directions of the present Committee, which has been set up and empowered by the Supreme Court, will amount to contempt of Court. Therefore the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings in violation of Directions II and III of One 16 Man Committee Report practically amounts to contempt of Court. Therefore for the reasons, pleased to allow the writ petitions.
14. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 in WP No.11476 of 2021. Wherein it is stated that, if any person transferred from one service to another service (for example Junior Assistant working in Accounts Service is transferred to P&G Service as Assistant) carrying the same scale of pay and same class (Junior Assistant and Assistant are categorized as Class-III employees and carrying the same scale of pay), shall not be treated as first appointment in the latter service (i.e. in P&G Service) for the purpose of fixing of seniority. The seniority of such transferred person from Accounts Service to P&G Service shall be fixed based on the date of his commencement of service in the cadre of Junior Assistant, in the former service i.e. Accounts Service. Therefore, Regulation 26 (b) of APSEB Service Regulations, Part-II is applicable for fixing the seniority when the transfer of a person from one category or grade in the same class of service to another category or grade in the same class of service. But, this sub-regulation is not applicable for fixing the seniority of a member of service who is transferred or administrative ground from one unit of operation to another unit of operation instead, Regulation 10 (iii) of APSEB Service Regulations, Part-III is applicable for fixing inter se seniority of employees transferred from one unit of operation to another unit of operation. Therefore, the contention of the APSPDCL that the employees who are allotted from TSSPDCL appointed in the same 17 recruitment in difference year and got two or three promotions when compared to the employees of APSPDCL and the recommendations of the committee to fix the seniority of the employees based on the induction seniority i.e. erstwhile APSEB combined seniority which is cease to exist is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to the Judgment in W.P.No.10726 of 2002, dated 30.11.2004.The 2ndRespondent failed to see that the impugned final seniority list is contrary to the stand taken in the counter affidavit in W.P. No.2746 of 2015 and also contrary to their own orders, dated 30.06.2016 issued in the case of Sri V.Prabhakar wherein the 2ndRespondent promoted him as superintendent Engineer though he was working in Ananthapur District as D.E. at that relevant point of time by duly taking into consideration of this cadre seniority in which he was working at that time and did not adopt the same principle in the present case and following the APSEB Seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in unjust, arbitrary and. contrary to law. For these reasons, prayed to allow the writ petitions.
15. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel; Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri M. Vijay Kuamr, learned Senior counsel representing Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel; learned Advocate General representing Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel and Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu, learned Standing Counsel for official respondents and Sri Surendra Rao, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Sinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned 18 counsel for R5 in WP No.11089 of 2021; Sri V.R Reddy Kovvuri and Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsels appearing for the un-official respondents.
16. On hearing, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners (in WP Nos.9996 and 11089 of 2021) while reiterating the contents made in the petitions, submits that, the petitioners in WP No. 9996 of 2021 were appointed in erstwhile APSPDCL, Warangal as Assistant Engineers during the year 2002 and were subsequently regularized in 2004 and promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineers (redesignated as Deputy Executive Engineer). The Petitioners in WP No. 11089 of 2021 were appointed in erstwhile APSEB between 1989-1991 and were allotted to TSSPDCL in 2002 during the unbundling of APSEB. While the petitioners were working under APNPDCL, the state of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated.He further submits that the Power utilities in the state of Telangana identified 1157 employees and issued relieving orders as per their nativity. Challenging the same WP No. 16330 of 2015 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad. The Hon'ble High Court declared the impugned orders based on nativity as unconstitutional and unenforceable. Being aggrieved by the same, the State of Telangana preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the issue at hand, constituted a One- Man Committee (OMC) headed by Justice Dharmadhikari for allocation of employees between the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana power utilities corporations. He submits that the One Man 19 Committee submitted a Final Report dated 26.12.2019, a Supplementary report dated 11.03.2020 and a concluding report dated 20.06.2020. Thereafter, the petitioners were allotted to APSPDCL as per the One Man Committee's report.
17. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior counsel further submits that before finalization of the allocation of the petitioners, Andhra Pradesh Government issued GO Ms. No. 41, dated 05-12-2019 and bifurcated APSPDCL into two, i.e. APSPDCL (Tirupathi) for SPSR Nellore, Chittoor, YSR Kadapa, Ananthapur and Kurnool Districts and APCPDCL (Vijayawada) for Prakasam Guntur and Krishna Districts. He further submits that the petitioners were thereafter given options and were allotted to APCPDCL Vijayawada vide SOO(CGM_ HRD) Ms. No. 599 dt. 11- 09-2020. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent issued Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/ DIR(TECH/GM(HR) / DGM-I/PO-II/JP/D.No.19/2021 dated 22-09-2020 preparing a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Dy. Executive Engineer (DEE) and Executive Engineers (EE) as on 31-12-2020. Petitioners were placed at Serial No. 55 to 68,70,71,90,93,94,103 and 104 respectively duly taking their date of joining in the Cadre of DEE into consideration. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent issued Final Seniority List dt. 17-03- 2021 stating that some DEEs have submitted their objections based on w0hich the Revised list, named as the Final Seniority list was issued. The petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity to raise objections with respect to the Final seniority list dated 17.3.2021. Challenging the same the present writ petitions have been filed. 20
18. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the Final Seniority List dated 17-03-2021 was published by the 2 nd Respondent, duly changing the criteria for fixing seniority of the petitioners and the petitioners were deprived of any opportunity to raise their objections to the said Final Seniority List. The Provisional Seniority List was issued based on the Cadre Seniority of the Employees whereas the Final Seniority list was issued basing upon the Induction Seniority of the Employees. As a result, the petitioners' places were shown much below than what they had been shown in the Provisional Seniority List. In such a scenario, the petitioners ought to have been provided with an opportunity to raise their objections, especially when the criteria for deciding the seniority itself was changed by the 2 ndRespondent.
19. To support his contentions, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (i) S.I Rooplal and Ors Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others1, wherein it was held that :
We will now take up the question whether the appellants are entitled to count their service rendered by them as Sub-Inspector in the BSF for the purpose of their seniority after absorption as Sub- Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police or not. We have already noticed the fact that it is pursuant to the needs of Delhi Police that these officials were deputed to Delhi Police from the BSF following the procedure laid down in Rule 5(h) of the Rules and subsequently absorbed as contemplated under the said Rules. It is also not in dispute that at some point of time in the BSF, the appellants' services were regularised in the post of Sub-Inspectors and they were transferred as regularly appointed Sub- Inspectors to Delhi Police force. Therefore, on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, we find no reason why these transferred officials should not be permitted to count their service in the parent department. At any rate, this question is not res Integra and is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments of this Court in more than one case. Since the earlier Bench of the tribunal relied upon Madhavan's case to give relief to the deputationists, we will first consider the law laid down by this Court in Madhavan `s case (supra) 1 MANU/SC/0776/1999 21
(ii) In another case in K. Madhavan and Ors. Vs Union of India (UOI) and others2, wherein it was held that :
We may examine the question from a different point of view. There is not much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the CBI, he is under the rules appointed on transfer. In other words. deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transferred post.
(iii) In K P Sudhakaran and ors vs State of Kerala and Ors.3, wherein it was held that :
In service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of service in the post before his transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing the seniority in the transferred post. But where a Government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a government servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, by claiming that his service in the department from which he has been transferred, should be taken into account. This is also because a person appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is, however, governed by the relevant service Rules.
(iv) In case of Union of India v. PK Roy and Ors.4, wherein it was held that 'Normally speaking, we should have thought that one opportunity for making a representation against the preliminary list published would have been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law. But the extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the straitjacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon 2 MANU/SC/0644/1987 3 MANU/SC/8149/2006 4 AIR 1968 SC 850 22 the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute
20. While relying upon the above decisions, learned senior counsel submits that, admittedly the provisional seniority list was prepared basing upon Cadre Seniority duly showing the names of the petitioners in the right places and there was no occasion to raise any objections by the petitioners. However, while fixing the final seniority, same was changed showing the names of the petitioners at lower places denying seniority without assuming any notice asking to explain as to why their seniority shall not be revised and the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice as such.
21. Learned Senior counsel further placed reliance on Regulation 26 Part II of APSEB Service Rules. Regulation 26 Part II of the APSEB Service Regulations reads as follows:
"Seniority:
(a) The seniority of a person in a class of service, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board or other appointing authority as the case may be.
Provided that where no ranking has been fixed in respect of any person in a service, class, category or grade, the seniority of such candidates shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under regulations 14(c), (e) 19 and 38(b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service, which counts towards probation.
(b) The transfer of a person from one category or grade in a class of service to another category or grade in the same class of service carrying the same pay on scale of pay; shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter for purpose of seniority; and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be determined with reference to the rank in the category or grade from which he was transferred. Where any difficulty or doubt arises in applying; this sub- regulations, seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority. 23
(c) Where a member of a class of service category or grade is reduced to a lower class of services, category or grade, he shall be placed at the top of the latter unless the authority ordering such reduction directs that he shall take rank in such lower classes of services, category or grade, next below any specified member thereof.
22. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior counsel while relying on the above, submits that, the aforesaid Regulation 26(b) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as contended by the Respondents. A plain reading of the regulation suggests that applicability of the said regulations arises when an employee is transferred from one category to another. But, in the present case, the petitioners have been allotted to APSPDCL in the same cadre of Assistant Engineers. Therefore, the question of transfer from one category or grade in a class ofservice to another does not arise in the first place. However, assuming that the said Regulation is applicable, it is Regulation 26(a) Proviso which is relevant to the present facts, which clearly states that where no ranking has been fixed in respect of any person in a service, class, category or grade, the seniority of such candidates shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. In view of the above submissions, learned Senior counsel prayed to allow the writ petitions.
23. Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in other 2 writ petitions, while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, contended that, the 2ndRespondent failed to see that Regulation 26 of Part II of APSEB Regulations absolutely have no application. Therefore, the finding that the seniority list of individual prepared and placed them at appropriate places as per the Regulation 26 of Part II of APSEB service 24 Regulation is contrary to law. He submits that the 2 nd Respondent erred in recording a finding that the provisional seniority list issued on 31.12.2020 derived is in line with the seniority list of 02.06.2014 as directed by One Man Committee (OMC) and there is no difference between two seniority lists, is contrary to Judgment in W.P.No.10762 of 2002, dated 30.11.2004. He further submits that the 2ndRespondent erred in preparing the impugned seniority in violation of the Tripartite Agreement, dated 09.09.1997.The impugned seniority list prepared by 2ndRespondent is contrary to Special Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulation 10 of Part III Note iii & iv, but not regulation 26 Part II of A.P. State Electricity Board Regulations. He further submits that the Impugned final integrated seniority list is contrary to Provisions of Section 82 & 78 of A.P. Reorganization Act. He submits that the 2nd respondent erred in not considering the elaborate and detailed objection both covering legal and factual aspects has not at all been considered in its proper prospective. Therefore, the impugned integrated final seniority list is liable to be struck down on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
24. Sri K G Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per Tripartite Agreement between the Government of A.P ,APSEB and APSEB Engineers Association, wherein it was agreed by and between the parties are i.e., mainly (b) and (f), reads as under:
(b) he terms and conditions of service upon transfer ١٣٤ ١٥ Corporate entities, such as promotions, transfers, leave and allowances etc., regulated by existing regulations/ service rules in vogue will be guaranteed to continue to be the same and any modifications shall be by mutual negotiations and settlement without detriment to the existing benefits.25
Xx
(f) All benefits of the services rendered by the employees in the Board as on the date of restructuring i.e., the effective date, shall be protected and shall be given full effect.
25. Learned Senior counsel has also relied upon the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part-III, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that "the seniority of member of a service who is transferred on administrative grounds from one unit of operation to another unit shall be fixed in the latter unit with reference to the date of his first appointment in the former unit.
26. Sri K. G Krishna Murthy, learned Senior counsel further submits that, as per A.P. Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules 1999, wherein, at clause 6 (3), it was stated that :
(3) On such transfer and subject to the provisions of the Act and other provisions in these rules the personnel shall form part vices of APGENCO or APTRANSCO, as the case may be, with the status and in the post, scale of pay a by being maintained in the same manner as in the Board on the effective date of transfer.
(4) Subject to sub-rule (1), the State Government may, after consulting the APGENCO, and by order to be notified as the date of transfer for the purpose frame a transfer scheme and, require APGENCO (the TRANSFEROR COMPANY) to transfer such of the Personnel as the State Government may specify to other generating company or companies, in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the State Government may specify in the order.
27. To support his contentions, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in B.S Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab and others5, wherein it was held that :
During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the order aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystalised which ought not to have been re-opened 5 (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 523 26 after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re- opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.
(ii) In another case reported in Wing Commander J Kumar Versus Union of India and others6, wherein the Apex Court held that :
As pointed out by this Court in the decision in R. S. Makashi v I. M. Menon (supra), it is a just and wholesome principle commonly applied in such situations where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their pre-existing length of service in the parent department should be respected and preserved by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre. Such a provision does not involve any discrimination violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
28. Learned Senior Counsel while relying upon the above submissions, prayed to allow the writ petitions
29. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents while denying the allegations made by the petitioners counsels, submits that, the combined State of A P was bifurcated as Two states i.e., AP and Telangana and Telangana State was formed with 10 Districts of combined AP and remaining 13 Districts are in the residuary State of Adhra Pradesh. The Government in Combined State of A.P had issued G.O.Ms.No.315 Revenue (DA&LR) Department, dated 11.09.2014 i.e., 7 Mandals of Khammam district were diverted to State of Andhra Pradesh from the State of Telangana. In the present case, the distribution of Companies falling within each State, with due regards to individual option the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 5.12.2019 with regard to distribution of APSPDCL, 6 (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 116 27 APSPDCL and APCPDCL and the division of staff shall be done on certain instructions. Thereafter options were given to the concerned employees.
30. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sudhir Kumar Atrey versus Union of India and others7 , wherein the Apex Court held that :
Adverting to the facts of the instant case when all the five Commands have initiated the process of selection independently at the same time pursuant to the directives of the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters dated 9th December, 1982 while adjudging their combined inter se seniority list, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for determination of inter se seniority in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.1.
20. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in its impugned judgment has expressed its conformity with the view expressed by the Tribunal so far as the determination of combined inter se 1 (1990) 2 SCC 715seniority at the All India level is concerned, but at the same time has made strong observations regarding the procedure being followed by the authority in making appointments from the select panel of June 1983 after 5 years of the selection in the year 1987/1988.
(ii) in another case reported in Om Prakash Sharma and others versus Union of India and others8, wherein the Apex Court held that :
This factual averment is unambiguously admitted. Consequent upon amalgamation in 1979 a fresh common seniority list was drawn up in which cadre wise respondent No. 3 was shown senior to appellant No. 1&2 and respondents No. 5, 6 & 9 were shown senior to appellant No. 3. Obviously when the amalgamation took place, respondents No. 3 to 6 could not score a march over erstwhile seniors on any valid principle of seniority. This would unquestionably be denial of equality under Article 16 of the Constitution. It may be that they might have enjoyed some accelerated promotion when workshop staff was amalgamated with the Bombay Office. But when they were repatriated and re-amalgamated with original two offices and brought back on the common seniority list, they must find their original place qua the appellants. This is not a case where appellants were passed over at the time of selection or denied promotion on the ground of unsui-tability. In such a situation status quo ante has to be restored. Obviously respondents No. 3 to 6 will be below the appellants and any other view to the contrary would be violative of Article 16 as it would constitute denial of equality in the matter of promotion. Therefore, the seniority list drawn up on a principle contrary to what is discussed herein would be bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
31. Learned Advocate General, while relying upon the above submissions, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions as there are no grounds to entertain the same.
7(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 352 8 1985 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 218 28
32. On the other hand, Sri Surendra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, while denying the contentions made by the petitioners, submits that, based on the APSEB Service Regulations, Part I, Part II & Part III, the seniority of employee shall be fixed who is transferred at his own request from one unit to another unit, the employees seniority will be fixed based on Regulation 10 of APSEB Service Regulations, Part III, Note III & IV i..e, in APCPDCL employees from one circle to another circle within the jurisdiction of APCPDCL thee regulations are applicable, whereas the petitioners are allotted from TS Power Utilities. The APCPDCL has issued integrated seniority list duly including the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and after giving detailed replies to the employees who raised their objections the final seniority list was communicated by the APCPDCL. He submits that there is no specific mention in their absorption for fixation of seniority and also in G.O Ms No.24, dated 29.5.2014 and also concluding report of OMC. He further submits that the final division of the employees and allotment was completed based on the OMC conclusion report dated 20.06.2020, APCPDCL has issued provisional integrated seniority list duly including the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and a committee was constituted to study the feasibility of the requests of the employees who raised their objections and to enable to communicate the final seniority list and after careful examination of the entire objections as submitted by the employees by the committee, within the boundaries of APSEB service Regulations as 29 adopted by APCPDCL, employees were answered and the seniority was finalized and Final Integrated Seniority list was communicated accordingly. At this stage, the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court with a mala fide intention and contrary to the rules and also creating unnecessary hurdles to the Management of APCPDCL. Therefore, the Final Integrated Seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers/El. communicated vide Memo. No. CMD/DIR(Tech. YGM(HRY/DGM-1/PO-II/D.No.992/21, dt:17.03.2021 is legal, proper and not violated natural justice and not violated the Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.
33. Sri Surendra Rao, learned Senior counsel mainly contended that the APCPDCL has issued provisional integrated seniority list duly including the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and a Committee was constituted to study the feasibility of the requests of the employees who raised their objections and to enable to communicate the final seniority list and after careful examination of the entire grievances/objections as submitted by the employees by the committee, within the boundaries of APSEB Service Regulations as adopted by APCPDCL, employees were answered and the seniority was finalized and Final Integrated Seniority list was communicated accordingly and it is not contrary to Rule 7(6)(e) of AP. Electricity Reforms Act, 1998.
34. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in (i) The State of Orissa vs. 30 KhageswaraDas and Others9 (ii) State of Maharashtra and another vs Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & others10; (iii)Wing Commander J. Kumar vs Union of India & Others11; (iv) Om Prakash Sharma & Others vs. Union of India & Others12; (v) In a case of K. Madhavan & another vs. Union of India and others13; (vi) In B.S Bajwa & another vs. State of Punjab and others 14 ; (vii) In Sub Inspector Rooplal and another vs. L.T governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi & others 15 and (viii) In case of Indu Shekhar Singh & othrs vs State of U.P & others 16
35. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents also while reiterating the averments made in the counter denied all the allegations made by the petitioners. He submits that the final division of the employees and allotment was completed based on the OMC conclusion report dated 20.06.2020, the APCPDCL has issued provisional integrated seniority list duly including the employees allotted from TS Power Utilities by calling objections from the employees and after giving detailed replies to the employees who raised their objections, the final seniority list was communicated by the APCPDCL. He submits that the APSEB has been following by its own regulations i.e., APSEB Service Regulations, Part- I Part- 9 1975 (2) SCC 553 10 1981 4 SCC 130 11 1982 (2) SCC 116 12 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 13 1987 (4) SCC 566 14 1998 (2) SCC 523 15 2000 (1) SCC 644 16 2006 (8) SCC 129 31 II and Part-III. As per regulation 10 of APSEB Service Regulations, Part III, Note III & IV that:
(iii) The seniority of member of a service who is transferred on administrative grounds from one unit of operation to another unit hall be fixed in the latter unit with reference to the date of his first appointment in the former unit.
(iv) A member of a service, who is transferred at his own request from one unit to another shall have his seniority fixed in the latter unit with reference to the date of his first appointment in that unit.
36. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel further submits that, the interpretation of the Regulations No. 10 is misconceive, the regulations are came in to force, the employees are who absorbed from unit (Circle/ Division) to another unit of operations / Division), their seniority will be the date for first appointment of unit. Where the petitioners are transfer and absorbed as per AP Organization Act 2014, and as per the guidelines of Hon'ble OMC and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide CA No 11435 of 2018. This verdict allocation was made. Not discussed in seniority. He further submits that the comparison between AP Electricity Reforms Act 1998 and AP Re-organization Act 2014 is different. Therefore, the APCPDCL has scrupulously followed the directions, their roles were included in APCPDCL, their lien and seniority is being maintained in APCPDCL, as per the seniority of the employees allocated from TS Power Utilities were promoted to the next higher cadre. Therefore, viewed from any angle, these writ petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.
32
37. Whereas, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit of 8th respondent, submits that, the induction seniority is applied to all the employees in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers and hence the recommendations of OMC are followed without any deviation. Further, the contention of the petitioners that Regulation 10 of Part III applies is not true and correct, as the same is pertaining to transfers and not reassignment/ allotment. He further submits that, it is an admitted fact that, the petitioners were appointed much later than the 8th respondent in the year 2002 and hence it cannot be contended that they have put in more service than this respondent. It is true that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADE), prior to this respondent, but that was due to the accelerated promotion in APCPDCL and due to availability of Assistant Divisional Engineers more than the sanctioned strength in APCPDCL. He further submits that, it is settled principle of law as laid down in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty 17 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there is no inherent right of promotion and the only right is the right to be considered for promotion. Further Section 82 or 78 of the Re-Organization Act 2014 prescribe any bar for introduction of a criteria to maintain parity and hence the said provisions have no relevancy whatsoever.
17
(1991) 2 SCC 295 33
38. To support his contentions, Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel has relied upon a catena of decisions reported in (i) State of Mysore vs G.B Purohit18; (ii) In Calcutta Gas Company vs. State of West Bengal 19; (iii) In Sudhir Kumar Atrey vs. Union of India20 and also he relied upon the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations, Part III, 6(a), wherein it was mentioned that :
6(a) Appointment to several classes of service specified in column-(1) of Annexure-I shall be made as specific in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof.
39. Learned counsel while relying upon the above, submits that, the petitioners cannot seek the issuance of writ of Mandamus invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue of locus standi is no longer Res integra and the same fell for consideration before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble court time and again held that, unless the persons who invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have to plead and substantiate that as to how their right either statutory or constitutional is infringed, invaded to issue a writ of Mandamus. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
18 (1967) SLR 753 19 AIR 1962 SC 1044 20 (2022) 1 SCC 352 34
40. Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents has also adopted the arguments of Sri M. Vijay Kuamr and Sri Surender Rao, learned senior counsels appearing for the respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
41. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the employees working under APSEB were allotted on permanent basis under the control of the respective six companies and intimated the same to all the employees by order T.O.O (Per GM) Ms No. 161, dated 13.08.2002 with effect from17.08.2002 and all the employees are ceased to be the employees of the dissolved APSEB and the seniority lists prepared by APSEB in the cadre AE ceased to be in existence w.e.f. 17.08.2002 and from this date onwards, the employees of the Board have become the employees of the respective companies which are independent in all respects and since the service conditions of all these employees are being governed by the respective service conditions of the independent companies.
42. As seen from the order of this Court in WP No.10726 of 2002 & batch, wherein this Court held as follows:
"the combined seniority list of APSEB allotted to the main successor of AP TRANSCO, ceases to exist w.e.f 17.8.2002 and the employees have been communicated in the seniority list in the respective cadre in the respective corporations to the said seniority for the purpose of promotion to the higher cadre. Therefore, they cannot claim any promotion based on the combined seniority list of APSEB"35
43. It is an admitted fact that while the petitioners are working under APCPDCL the combined State of AP was bifurcated as two States i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in the year 2014 and the State of Telangana had relived number of employees working in different power utility undertakings and surrendered to the State of AP Power utilities basing on their domicile in the year 2015.This Court further observed that, after bifurcation, number of employees were approached this Court for the State of AP and Telangana by way of filing batch of writ petitions i.e., WP No.16330 of 2015 & batch, and this Court, vide judgment, dated 02.02.2018, while setting aside the impugned proceedings, directed all the Power utility companies in Telangana to continue the employees in the same place where they were working and proceed with the allocation after determining the modalities for such allocation. Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 & batch were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide common judgment dated 28.11.2018 has appointed One Man Committee consisting of Justice D.M Dharmadhikaari, the former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court determining the modalities for distributing the employees and the said Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties including power utility companies of the two States as well as employees and the same shall be executed by all the parties as an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
44. This Court also observed that the One Man Committee after giving opportunity to all the employees and after considering all the aspects 36 submitted three reports i.e, Final, Supplementary and Conclusive reports and after considering of the same, the petitioners were allotted to APSPDCL in January 2020.It is the contention of the respondents that Provisional seniority lists were issued in different division including the cadre of EEs. And the final Seniority List in the said EEs was issued on 17.03.2021 and the said Seniority list is in accordance with law,
45. It is pertinent to mention here the G.O.Ms.No.41 Energy (Power.I) Department, dated 5.12.2019, wherein it was clearly mentioned that as per Clause 4(E ), the employees options would be based and done on induction seniority.
46. Further, the rule of induction seniority is being applied to all the candidates in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer (now Deputy Executive Engineer) and no differential treatment is meted against employees allocated from Telangana Power Utilities and that the rule of induction seniority is applied to all the employees irrespective of their parent organization.
47. It is also relevant to mention here, with regard to TRIPARTIE AGREEMENT which was entered into, at the time of implementation of Act and reorganization of APSEB, the Government of AP., and APSEB have entered into agreements with service Unions and Associations. Accordingly, there is an agreement with APSEB Engineer's Association (Regd.No.874/1975).The relevant conditions read as follows: 37
Condition (b): "The terms and Conditions of service upon transfer to the corporate entities such as PROMOTIONS - TRANSFERS leave and allowances etc., regulated by the existing regulations service rules in vogue will be guaranteed to be continued to be same and any modifications shall be by mutual negotiations and settlement without determent to the existing benefits".
Condition (c): "All benefits of the service rendered by the employees in the Board as on the date of restructuring i.e., effective date shall be protected and shall be given full effect".
Condition (g): "the period of service of employees under the Board and under corporate entity shall be treated as continuous service for the purpose of all service benefits and terminal benefits payable to the personnel".
48. Therefore, the reforms and reorganization of APSEB clearly establishes the services personnel, transferred and allocated to successive entities, as continuity of service of the service rendered during the period of APSEB with the continued and same service regulations. Hence the seniority as fixed by APSEB at the time of recruitment and appointing of petitioners and respondents holds good.
49. It is also to be noted that the TSSPDCL authorities have relieved all the personnel natives of Andhra Pradesh with instructions to approach Andhra Pradesh Power utilities. Therefore in accordance with the guidelines issued by Justice D.M.Dharmadhikari, One Man Committee, ordered by Hon'ble Apex Court, the services of personnel were transferred to APSPDCL (from APCPDCL). All the petitioners are among several others, transferred to APSPDCL (from APCPDCL and also APNPDCL) after reorganization of the state of A.P. on 02.06.2014 while all the respondents are the personnel allocated to APSPDCL w.e.f. 17.08.2002 (from the composite predecessor 38 unit APSEB) in accordance with A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 and A.P. Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 1999.
50. It is further observed that the transfer of service personnel, after reorganization of State is as per the sections 78,79 and 82 and they are reiterated hereunder:
Section 78:Nothing in the section or in section 77 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day (02.06.2014) the operation of the provisions of chapter-1of Part-1 of constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the union or state", Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the state of Andhra Pradesh or to the state of Telangana under section 77 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.
2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person
a) If he is deemed to have been allocated to any state under section 77 shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of state.
b) If he is deemed to have been allocated to the union in connection with the administration of successor state of Telangana shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the union, for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service.
3) The provisions of section 77 shall not apply in relation to members of any "All India Service".
"Section 79:Every person who, immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing state of Andhra Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within one of the successor state shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor state and shall be deemed on and from that day to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of or other appropriate authority in that successor state.39
Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority on and from the appointed day from passing to such person any order or affecting the continuation such post of office.
51. Therefore the order No.331/21 dated 31.08.2023 i.e., finalized integrated seniority list is in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Reorganization Act.
Further, as per Section 82:
"..on and from the appointed day the employees of state public undertakings, corporations and other autonomous bodies shall continue to function in such undertaking, corporations or autonomous bodies for a period of one year and during this period the corporate body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the between the two successor states".
52. It is also to be noted the Directions III to V of Supplementary report dated 11.03.2020 to the final report dated 26.12.2019 of Justice D.M Dharmadhikari, One Man Committee for allocation of power sector employees in the bifurcated states of A.P and Telangana, reads as follows:
Directions III: "The employees allocated in each State to a particular Company will be considered at par with other employees, in accordance with the Service Rules and Regulations, for other service benefits including their due consideration for promotion.
Directions IV- The employees allocated to a Company in each State can be within the State, by the Managements of the concerned Companies, allocated or adjusted inter-se between the Distribution Companies within each state.
Directions V:- It is made clear, that employees "other than those"
included in the Two Allocation lists Annexed to the Final and Supplementary Report, working on the appointed date 02.06.2014, on "order to serve" basis in the Companies in the two States will be treated to have been allocated to the respective Companies in the Two States in continuous service "as is 40 where is" for the purpose of pay and all other service benefits including their due chances of promotion at par with the regular employees in each company.
53. In view of the above, it is observed that the above directions of the One Man Committee clearly indicate that the employees allocated are required to be treated at par with other employees in accordance with Service Rules and Regulations. Therefore this Court is of the view that the seniority list is prepared as per the directions of the One Man Committee.
54. Admittedly petitioners and unofficial respondents were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB). It is also an admitted fact that the unofficial respondents were appointed in the year 1997 to 1999. The unofficial respondents 5 and 7 are belonging to Schedule castes and Schedule Tribe. All The petitioners were appointed subsequent to the unofficial respondents. The petitioners got some accelerated promotions in the TSSPDCL and they enjoyed the promotions. As original appointments as A.E the petitioners are juniors to the unofficial respondents in the seniority list. But petitioners cannot be treated as seniors to the unofficial respondents.
55. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.APCPDCL/CMD/ DIR(TECH)/GM(HR)/DGM/PO(Adm)/Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 in WP Nos.9996 of 2021 and 11089 of 2021; (ii) Memo No.CMD/CGM/HRD/JS/HR/GM/HR/DGM/(Trg.)/JPO.I/D.No.337/21, dated 41 03.04.2021 in WP No.11476 of 2021 and also (iii) Memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD) /JS(HR) /GM(P) /PO(P)/JPO.AI/D.No.409/23 dated 31.08.2023 in WP No.29140 of 2023 are in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Reorganization Act and also the directions of One Man Committee (OMC). Therefore, warranting no interference in the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent.
56. Viewed from any angle, this Court found no merits in all the writ petitions and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
57. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 24.01.2025
Gvl
42
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos:9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 Date : 24.01.2025 Gvl 43