Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Insofar as the other batch of writ petitions is concerned, it is stated that in respect of the employees who could not be allotted to their first preference, they were issued with allotment letters allotting to one of the corporation. Apart from that, they were also given an opportunity to make a representation in respect of their allotment before 25th July, 2002. They were asked to make representation accompanied by supporting documents/evidence justifying their allotments to other companies. The said opportunity was not given to the employees whose cases are being considered and allotted as per their first option choice. The High Level Committee which met on 6-8-2002 considered the genuine cases of other employees who could not be allotted to their first preference keeping in view of the vacancies which would arise due to promotions/retirement up to 31-3-2003. Thus, the final absorption to the respective companies was completed by the middle of the August, 2002 and all the employees were allotted to the respective companies as per the seniority and other service conditions have also joined in August, 2002. The criteria for allotment and finalization of option was seniority, work experience and sanctioned posts. Petitioners have exercised their options in favour of TRANSCO and accordingly they have been allotted to A.P.TRANSCO. Thus, after final absorptions, the petitioners have been exclusively allotted to the company i.e. TRANSCO from the date of final allotment. The news item appeared on 10/11-7-2002 is neither a clarification nor a decision of the High Level Committee and the said news item is a misquoted statement. The High Level Committee as already stated, the revised options considered in respect of the cases not allotted in the initial round and based on score, score review cases, spouse cases, single lady cases, nearing retirement cases, medical cases and domestic and other representations. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that representations were called from all the employees including the employees whose first options were considered. The petitioners have been finally absorbed in APTRANSCO, in accordance with the guidelines issued in the circular, tripartite agreement, Act and Rules. The allegation that junior most employees were allotted to distribution companies got accelerated promotions, ignoring the claim of eligible senior most officers as per the combined seniority list of erstwhile APSEB is misconceived. After finalization of the allotments and issuance of T.O.O.Ms.No. 160 dated 13-8-2002, the petitioners are ceased to be employees of erstwhile APSEB and they become exclusive employees of A.P.TRANSCO and the combined seniority list of erstwhile APSEB is ceased to exist. Therefore, no comparison can be made since the erstwhile combined seniority does not exist after TOO Ms.No. 160 dated 13-8-2002 is issued. After absorption of employees, in the respective companies separate seniority list ensuing their relevant seniority in each and every category basis has come into existence. As per availability of the vacancy in respect of companies and as per the combined seniority in the transferee company, promotions were given to the eligible based on the seniority and therefore, the petitioners working in APTRANSCO cannot be compared with the persons who have absorbed in APSEPDCL and APNPDCL. Petitioners were also informed accordingly that they cannot compare themselves with the posts available in other distribution companies and the petitioners' cases would be considered as per their seniority list in the APTRANSCO alone. The transition period mentioned in the tripartite agreement and the Rules not to exceed the maximum period of five years and there is no minimum period to complete the process of completing the options for the allotment of personnel in respective companies. After final allotment, the transition period has come to an end by 13-8-2000 itself. The orders issued in TOO 130 dated 23-8-2003 is only a clarification to TOO, dated 13-12-2002. To exercise their options as per the tripartite agreement for the transfer of mutual consent of the companies concerned, availability of the posts in the equal category or grade subject to further condition that they should forfeit their lien and seniority in the company to which he or she belongs and accepts last rank in the seniority fixed for the category or grade in the class of service or different service in other companies with reference to the date of his appointment in the transferee company. Even though mutual transfers and transfers to other companies forgoing the service etc., was also discontinued from 31-1-2004 onwards. Therefore, the said TOOs are not preferable to transfer in the period referred in the tripartite agreement. It is stated that none of the juniors to the petitioners were promoted to the higher posts insofar as the TRANSCO is concerned after option process. Petitioners were absorbed into A.P.TRANSCO as per their options and they are not entitled to be treated as employees of other companies other than the APTRANSCO.

(2) The assets, liabilities and Proceedings forming part of Transmission and Distribution undertaking as set out in Schedule-B shall stand transferred to and vest in APTRANSCO on the effective date of transfer notified for the purpose without any further act or thing to be done by the State Government or the Board or APTRANSCO or any other person subject, however, to the terms and conditions in these rules.

(3) On such transfer and vesting of the assets, liabilities and Proceedings in terms of Sub-rule (1) APGENCO to APTRANSCO, as the case may be, the APGENCO or Sub-rule (2) to or the APTRANSCO, the Transferee, shall be responsible for all contracts, rights, deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements and other instruments of whatever nature to which the Board was initially a party, subsisting or having effect on the effective date of transfer, in the same manner as the Board was liable immediately before the effective date, and the same shall be in force and effect against or in favour of the Transferee and may be enforced effectively as if the Transferee had been a party thereto instead of the Board:

Rule 4: Retention of other Undertaking by APTRANSCO The APTRANSCO has not and shall not be deemed to have transferred, and shall continue to hold, all rights and interests in and bear all obligations and liabilities, including all-assets, liabilities, proceedings and Personnel, relating to all the APTRANSCO Undertaking(s) other than the Distribution Undertakings transferred to the APDISTCO-I, the APDISTCO-II, the APDISTCO-III and the APDISTCO- IV respectively, as provided above. The provisional balance sheet of the APTRANSCO as on the effective date is attached herewith as Schedule "F".

Rule 5: Substitution of APTRANSCO BY APDISTCOs On the transfer and vesting of the Distribution Undertakings to the APDISTCOs in terms of Clause 3 of the Second Transfer Scheme, the Transferee shall be responsible for all contracts, rights, deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements and other instruments of whatever nature to which the APTRANSCO was initially a party, subsisting or having effect on the effective date in the same manner as the APTRANSCO was liable immediately before the effective date, and the same shall be in force and effect against or in favour of the Transferee and may be enforced effectively as if the Transferee had been a party thereto instead of the APTRANSCO.