Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: integrated seniority in Jana Sreenivasulu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 January, 2025Matching Fragments
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 1985 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 218
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 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.