Y. Sai Satya Prasad vs D. Prabhakara Rao

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D.No.28852 of 2020

Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. …Petitioner(s)

Versus

D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1.0. Present contempt petition has been preferred by the 84

petitioners – erstwhile employees of the Andhra

Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful

disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this

Court dated 7.12.2020 in MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SNEHA Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Date: 2022.10.11 16:01:32 IST Reason:

Miscellaneous Applications in the case of Telangana

Page 1 of 54 Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Andhra

Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited

reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 995 non­compliance

alleged against the Telangana Power Utilities

(hereinafter referred to as the “TS Power Utilities”).

2.0. Shri Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi learned Senior Advocate has

appeared on behalf of the applicants, Shri Ranjit

Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior Advocates have

appeared on behalf of alleged contemnors – Telangana

Power Utilities and Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned

Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the

respondent­ Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.

3.0. Shri Ahmadi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted

that by detailed judgment and orders dated

20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020 this Hon’ble Court accepted

the report submitted by the One Man Committee of

Hon’ble Mr. Justice D M Dharmadhikari. It is

submitted that by an order dated 7.12.2020 this Court

had accepted the Concluding Report of the One Man

Page 2 of 54 Committee and has directed the respondents to

implement and absorb all the employees allocated to

TS Power Utilities. However, TS Power Utilities have

arbitrarily and unilaterally left out the petitioners

contrary to the judgment dated 7.12.2020.

3.1. It is submitted by Shri Ahmadi that a perusal of the

judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by this

Court would show that the objections of TS Power

Utilities, with regard to the excess allocation and also

with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of 655

numbers, were categorically rejected and the final list

appended to the Concluding Report has been expressly

affirmed. It is submitted that as such there was an

express direction to the power utilities of both the

States and all concerned to implement the report of

One Man Committee.

3.2. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior

Advocate that a perusal of the Concluding Report of

the One Man Committee makes it explicit that both the

Power Utilities have to absorb 655 employees each as

Page 3 of 54 per Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is

submitted that this figure of 655 has also been

reiterated by this Court in the subsequent judgment

and order dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that in the

operative directions in the Concluding Report, it has

expressly been stated that allocation made is final and

binding both on the employer and employees; and

failure to implement the same may be reported to the

Supreme Court for remedial or punitive action. It is

submitted that the only exception carved out in the

said directions was with regard to those employees

who have attained the age of 58 years in the year

2020, who will be kept out of the allocation process. It

is submitted that none of the petitioners have attained

the age of 58 years in the year 2020.

3.3. It is submitted that all the 84 petitioners figured in the

final list prepared by the One Man Committee. The

names of the petitioners were duly mentioned in the

said list, which was prepared utilities wise by the One

Man Committee. It is submitted that as per the final

Page 4 of 54 list 28 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35

members had to be absorbed in TS Transco, similarly

21 petitioners had to be absorbed in TS Discoms.

3.4. It is submitted that pursuant to the passing of the

Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 by the One Man

Committee, Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities have

implemented the directions in toto, as per the final list

annexed to the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020

prepared by the One Man Committee.

3.5. It is submitted that on one hand, the Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities, while implementing the directions have

relived the applicants, however TS Power Utilities have

not absorbed the petitioners, which action is in teeth

of directions issued by this Court accepting One Man

Committee report of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D M

Dharmadhikari.

3.6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein ought not

have been dropped by TS Power Utilities in terms of

the judgment dated 7.12.2020 because; (I) apparently

Page 5 of 54 the names of the petitioners are part of the Concluding

Report dated 20.06.2020 and allocation list of

Direction Nos.II and III ; (II) none of the petitioners had

attained the age of 58 years in the year 2020 and thus

are outside the scope and ambit of Direction No.I; (III)

the relieving orders issued by the Andhra Pradesh

Utilities to petitioners upon being allocated to TS

Utilities dated 20.06.2020 in terms of Concluding

Report dated 20.06.2020 are upheld and said

allocation has become final in terms of the judgment

dated 7.12.2020; (IV) That TS Power Utilities have

truncated the entire allocation by indulging into re­

allocation of retired employees. The lists annexed to

office order have two lists, one of (Employee absorbed),

second list comprises of those employees who were

allocated by One Man Committee to corresponding

Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities and they got expired or

have attained the age of 58 years. It is submitted that

said second list is appended only to cause confusion

and none of the employees in the second list are part

of the final lists of TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL or

Page 6 of 54 TSNPDCL as per the Concluding Report dated

20.06.2020 r/w compliance report dated 26.06.2020.

3.7. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior

Advocate that despite express directions from this

Court read with directions of Concluding Report dated

20.06.2020, the respondent contemnors ­ TS Power

Utilities are in willful disobedience in not having

implemented the allocation made by the One Man

Committee as per the final list, leaving the petitioners,

who were to be absorbed in the power utilities of the

Telangana State high and dry. It is submitted that

non­compliance is borne out by the following:

(I). That the office order dated 17.12.2020 issued by the

TS Genco which is contrary to the report of the One

Man Committee accepted by this Court;

A. that as per report of the One Man Committee, TS

Genco was to absorb 300 employees in total, from AP

Genco;

B. that since TS Genco has already admitted 26

employees in terms of Supplementary Report dated

Page 7 of 54 11.03.2020, the total employees to be admitted by TS

Genco ought to be 300 as per the judgment dated

7.12.2020;

C. that however, TS Genco has reduced this number of

226 employees and resultantly 28 petitioners are

dropped their allocation to TS Genco held to be

absolute and all 28 petitioners have not attained the

age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of

direction. It is submitted that this is contrary to the

judgment of this Court, the direction no. I stipulates to

exclude retired persons from TS Genco allocation list

annexed to Concluding Report and none of the

petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No.I;

D. that therefore, TS Genco have devised the office order

to circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of

the numbers and truncating the allocation lists and

contemnors are guilty of dropping 28 petitioners, as a

result of willful disobedience of the order of this Court;

E. that the list of employees absorbed does not include

the 28 petitioners who were already included in the

final list of the One Man Committee. It is submitted

Page 8 of 54 that the said lists annexed to office order are prepared

to confuse the tally of allocation lists and to suppress

the fact that TS Genco has absorbed only 226 (out of

300), a list of 252(226 + 26) has been appended to

office order to mislead this Court by repeating the

same 26 employees who were already admitted on

11.03.2020 vide Supplementary Report of One Man

Committee. It is submitted that further a list of 48

employees is appended, these are employees who were

never part of 300 employees allocated to TS Genco and

the list is fraudulently appended, just to display and

match the numbers.

3.8. It is further submitted that similarly office order dated

18.12.2020 issued by the TS Transco is nothing but a

willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed

by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020

accepting the report of the One Man Committee. It is

submitted that as per the Concluding Report, TS

Transco was to absorb 173 employees from AP

Transco. It is submitted that since TS Transco had

Page 9 of 54 already admitted 30 employees in terms of

Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the total

employees to be admitted by TS Transco ought to be as

per the judgment dated 7.12.2020. It is submitted that

however, TS Transco has reduced this number to 104

employees and resultantly 35 petitioners are dropped

despite their allocation to TS Transco held to be

absolute and all 35 petitioners have not attained the

age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of

Direction I. It is submitted that this is contrary to the

judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I only

stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TS Transco

list annexed to Concluding Report and none of the

petitioners are retired in terms of Direction No. I. It is

submitted that TS Transco issued office order

audaciously ignoring the allocation made under

Direction No.II & III as approved by this Court. It is

submitted that therefore, TS Transco have devised the

office order to circumvent the orders of this Court with

jugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation

lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping 35

Page 10 of 54 petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the

order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of

employees absorbed does not include the 35

petitioners who were already included in the final list

of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to

office order are prepared to confuse the tally of

allocation lists and suppress the fact that TS Transco

has absorbed only 104 (out of (173 +8), a list of 134

(104 +30) has been appended to office order to mislead

this Court by repeating the same 30 employees who

were already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide

Supplementary Report of One Man Committee. It is

further submitted that the employees who were never

part of 173 employees allocated just to TS Transco and

the list is fraudulently appended to display and match

the number.

3.9. It is further submitted that even the office order dated

18.12.2020 issued by the TSNPDCL would also

tantamount to contempt and willful disobedience of

the judgment and order passed by this Court. It is

Page 11 of 54 submitted that as per the Concluding Report,

TSSPDCL was to absorb 113 employees from

APSPDCL. It is submitted that since TSSPDCL had

already admitted 15 employees in terms of

Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020, the total

employees to be admitted by TASSPDCL ought to be

(113+2) as per the judgment dated 07.12.2020. It is

submitted that however, TSSPDCL has reduced this

number to 66 employees and resultantly 20 petitioners

are dropped despite their allocation to TSSPDCL held

to be absolute and all 20 petitioners have not attained

age of 58 years and thus are outside the purview of

Direction I. It is submitted that this is contrary to the

judgment of this Court, the Direction No.I only

stipulates to exclude Retired persons from TSSPDCL

Allocation list annexed to the Concluding Report and

none of the petitioners are retired in terms of Direction

No.I. It is submitted that TSSPDCL issued office order

audaciously ignoring the allocation made under

Direction Nos. II & III as approved by this Court. It is

submitted that therefore, TSSPDCL have devised the

Page 12 of 54 office order to circumvent the orders of this Court with

jugglery of the numbers and truncating the allocation

lists and contemnors are guilty of dropping 20

petitioners as a result of willful disobedience of the

order of this Court. It is submitted that the list of

employees absorbed does not include the 20

petitioners who were already included in the final list

of the One Man Committee. The said lists annexed to

office order are prepared to confuse the tally of

allocation lists and suppress the fact that TSSPDCL

has absorbed only 66 (out of (113 +2), a list of 81 (66

+15) has been appended to office order to mislead this

Court by repeating the same 15 employees who were

already admitted on 11.03.2020 vide Supplementary

Report of One Man Committee. It is further submitted

that the employees who were never part of 113

employees allocated just to TSSPDCL and the list is

fraudulently appended to display and match the

number.

3.10. It is further submitted by Shri Ahmadi learned Senior

Page 13 of 54 Advocate that the office order dated 19.12.2020 issued

by the TSNPDCL is also in teeth of the judgment and

order passed by this Court. It is submitted that as per

the Concluding Report, TSNPDCL was to absorb 69

employees from APLPDCL & APSPDCL. It is submitted

that since TSNPDCL, the net employees to be admitted

by TSSPDCL ought to be 69 as per the judgment dated

07.12.2020. It is submitted that however, TSNPDCL

has reduced this number to 60 employees and

resultantly petitioner no.83 is dropped despite their

allocation to TSNPDCL held to be absolute and the

said single petitioner has not attained age of 58 years

and thus are outside the purview of Direction I. It is

submitted that this is contrary to the judgment of this

Court, the Direction No.I only stipulates to exclude

Retired persons from TSNPDCL Allocation list annexed

to the Concluding Report and petitioner no.83 is not

retired in terms of Direction No.I. It is submitted that

therefore, TSNPDCL have devised the office order to

circumvent the orders of this Court with jugglery of the

numbers and truncating the allocation lists and

Page 14 of 54 contemnors are guilty of dropping 1 petitioner as a

result of willful disobedience of the order of this Court.

It is submitted that the list of employees absorbed

does not include the petitioner no.83 who was already

included in the final list of the One Man Committee.

The said lists annexed to office order are prepared to

confuse the tally of allocation lists and suppress the

fact that TSNPDCL has absorbed only 60 (out of 69),

but a list 65 has been appended to office order to

mislead this Court. It is further submitted that the

employees who were never part of 69 employees

allocated just to TSNPDCL and the list is fraudulently

appended to display and match the number.

3.11. It is submitted that from the above, it is apparent that

TS Power Utilities have not implemented the judgment

dated 7.12.2020 passed by this Court. It is submitted

that after confirmation of the Concluding Report of the

One Man Committee and allocation lists, this was only

a mechanical exercise of admission of the employees

based on the lists, but TS Power Utilities have

Page 15 of 54 reopened the entire lists and indulged in unilateral

pick and choose.

3.12. It is submitted that in terms of direction VI of the One

Man Committee, the petitioners are to be given posting

and joining orders. It is submitted that the direction

issued is followed by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities,

but Telangana Power Utilities have unilaterally altered

the allocation lists and have denied posting and joining

orders of 84 petitioners.

Making above submissions, it is prayed to punish the

respondent/ contemnors Telangana Power Utilities for

deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders

passed by this Court dated 20.06.2020 and 7.12.2020

and not acting as per the Concluding Report of the

One Man Committee.

4.0. Shri Ranjit Kumar and Shri V Giri, learned Senior

Advocates have appeared on behalf of alleged

contemnors – Telangana Power Utilities. It is

vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the TS

Power Utilities that vide order dated 28.11.2019 this

Page 16 of 54 Court constituted One Man Committee headed by

Justice D M Dharmadhikari (Retd.) to frame the

modalities and finalize the allocation of employees

between the Power Utilities of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh. One Man Committee determined the

modalities and submitted final report dated

26.12.2019 allocating 655 employees out of 1157

employees from TS power Utilities to Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities while retaining 502 employees in TS

Power Utilities, as per the opinion given by them. That

aggrieved by the final report dated 26.12.2019, the

Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities filed Miscellaneous

Application Nos.60, 61 and 62 of 2019 in Civil Appeal

No. 11435 of 2019. That this Court by an order dated

24.1.2020 directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities

to make a representation and same was to be

considered by the One Man Committee and take

appropriate decision.

4.1. It is submitted that in terms of the direction of this

Court, an application was made by Andhra Pradesh

Page 17 of 54 Power Utilities on 3.2.2020 before the One Man

Committee and the TS Power Utilities were submitted

their objections. That during the hearing before the

One Man Committee, TS Power Utilities agreed to

accommodate 71 employees from Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities to TS Power Utilities on spouse and

medical grounds. That the One Man Committee vide

supplementary report dated 11.3.2020 allocated 71

employees from Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to TS

Power Utilities on spouse and medical grounds etc.

and directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to

identify remaining 584 employees (655­71 = 584) for

allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, since

Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities had accepted 655

employees allocated by TS Power Utilities. Accordingly,

the TS Power Utilities issued posting orders to 71

employees allocated by Supplementary Report dated

11.3.2020. That thereafter Andhra Pradesh Power

Utilities submitted a report of 584 employees allocable

from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana vide their letter

dated 12.3.2020. Aggrieved by the letter dated

Page 18 of 54 12.03.2020 of Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, a

representation was made by TS Power Utilities to the

One Man Committee to reconsider the list submitted

by Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities being contrary to

modalities. It is submitted that at that stage, One Man

Committee filed an application in MA No.915 of 2020

in MA No.60 of 2020 for payment of salaries pending

consideration of objections made by the TS Power

Utilities. The same came to be allowed by order dated

8.4.2020. It is submitted that thereafter this Court in

Application made by the TS Power Utilities, by an

order dated 1.5.2020 observed that One Man

Committee shall take up the objections and take a

decision at an early date after hearing all the affected

persons and further directed to take steps for payment

of salaries to the effected employees within a period of

one week. Accordingly, TS Power Utilities have paid

salaries to 584 employees who are figuring in the list

dated 12.3.2020 communicated by the Andhra

Pradesh Power Utilities to the One Man Committee.

Page 19 of 54 It is submitted that One Man Committee vide

instructions dated 11.5.2020 directed the Andhra

Pradesh Power Utilities to send their proposed revised

list limited to 584 employees, duly taking into

consideration the representations received from the

employees. It is submitted that Andhra Pradesh Power

Utilities vide letter dated 26.5.2020 submitted a

revised list of 655 employees allocable from Andhra

Pradesh to TS Power Utilities on the principle of

reciprocity. It is submitted that said list includes 71

employees already allocated vide supplementary report

dated 11.3.2020 and working TS Power Utilities as on

that date.

4.2. It is submitted that thereafter One Man Committee by

Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 annexed the

revised list dated 26.5.2020 furnished by the Andhra

Pradesh and gave further directions. It is further

submitted that One Man Committee held that the

allocation of 655 employees from Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh is concluded. It further observed that

Page 20 of 54 at para 28 that allocation list, company wise, post wise

prepared by the Andhra Pradesh for allocation from

Andhra Pradesh to Telangana is approved and in para

no.29 suggested the list annexed to concluding report

to be modified in terms of the directions contained

therein. It is submitted that direction No.I of para

No.29 specifies that the retired employees who

attained or will be attaining 58 years of age in the year

2020 can be kept out of the allocation process and

their names in the allocation lists are to be removed. It

is submitted that direction no. II specifies that the

Sub­Committee Member, Andhra Pradesh may re­

examine left out spouse and medical cases and every

attempt should be made to accommodate them in the

State of their option. It is submitted that direction

no.III specifies that all SC/ST employees cases be re­

examined to accommodate them as per Modality VII in

the State where they are notified as SCs and STs so as

not to affect their future service growth.

4.3. It is submitted that on the implementation of the

Page 21 of 54 Direction No.I of para 29 of the Concluding Report, the

TS Power Utilities have identified 123 employees who

are to be removed from the allocated list of 655

employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.

Accordingly, allocated employees from Telangana State

to Andhra Pradesh is reduced from 655 to 532 (655­

123). It is submitted that therefore, correspondingly

532 members are to be allocated from Andhra Pradesh

to Telangana State. It is submitted that out of 532

allocable employees, 71 employees have already joined

and working in TS Power Utilities in terms of the

Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020. Accordingly,

equal number of employees i.e. 123 members were

removed from the list of allocable employees from

Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State on the principle of

Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality. It is submitted

that in the process of removing 123 members, the 71

employees already allocated have not been disturbed.

Accordingly, 456 employees are allocable from Andhra

Pradesh to Telangana State. In respect of two

employees allocable from Andhra Pradesh to

Page 22 of 54 Telangana State, a clarification has been sought for,

from the Andhra Pradesh.

4.4. It is submitted that thus the TS Power Utilities have

implemented the judgment dated 7.12.2020 and

Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 of the One Man

Committee in its true spirit. It is submitted that thus,

the excess employees relieved from Andhra Pradesh to

Telangana State are 83 (615­532=83).

4.5. It is submitted that in the process of allocation of

employees, One Man Committee has allocated 71

employees working in Andhra Pradesh to Telangana

State on spouse and medical grounds. They were

treated as part of allocable employees in reciprocation

of 655 already allocated to Andhra Pradesh vide Final

Report dated 26.12.2019. It is submitted that

therefore, Andhra Pradesh was directed to identify

remaining 584 (655­71) vide the Supplementary

Report dated 11.3.2020.

4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction

Page 23 of 54 No. II of Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, the

same procedure is to be followed by the Andhra

Pradesh whereas Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated

26.8.2020 identified 10 employees, who are shown

over and above allocable 655 employees, which is just

contrary to the reports of the One Man Committee. It is

further submitted that it is open for the Andhra

Pradesh to adjust the said employees within the

Reciprocation ratio and in proportion to allocated

employees from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh.

4.7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Telangana

State Power Utilities that entire allocation process

undertaken by the One Man Committee is on the

principle of reciprocity and the same was reiterated in

para no.21 of the Concluding Report. It is submitted

that since 655 employees are already allocated vide

Final Report dated 26.12.2019 from Telangana to

Andhra Pradesh, equal number were allocable from

Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. It is submitted

that the One Man Committee had taking into

Page 24 of 54 consideration of 71 employees already allocated,

directed the Andhra Pradesh to furnish a list of 584

employees and the same were included as Annexure to

the Concluding Report. In the process of

implementation of Directions of Concluding Report

dated 20.06.2020, 123 employees are deleted by

Telangana State. It is submitted that therefore, the

allocable employees from Andhra Pradesh to

Telangana State shall also stand reduced from 655 to

532 (655­123=532). It is submitted that further 10

employees allocated under Direction No.II are to be

accommodated within 532 including 71 employees

already allocated. However, the Andhra Pradesh has

not undertaken any exercise thereby leading to

retention of 83 employees allocable from Andhra

Pradesh to Telangana State, which lead to the present

situation. It is submitted that instead of rectifying the

same, Andhra Pradesh is seeking to justify their stand

by filing intervention petition, which is unjustified.

4.8. It is further submitted that the principle of reciprocity

Page 25 of 54 has been approved by this Court in its judgment dated

7.12.2020 (para 26, 41 & 42). It is submitted that this

Court has further observed that the implementation of

the direction cannot be termed as modification of the

Concluding Report and both the Power Utilities were

directed to implement the same. It is submitted that

thus there is no violation on the part of the TS Power

Utilities in the implementation of the orders dated

7.12.2020.

Making above submissions, it is prayed to

dismiss the present contempt petition and to direct

Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to retain the

corresponding 83 employees deleted from the list of

employees allocable from Andhra Pradesh to

Telangana duly adhering to the principle of reciprocity

and financial neutrality.

5.0. Shri Niraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the intervenors­ Andhra

Pradesh Power Utilities has submitted that the

respective alleged contemnors have committed

Page 26 of 54 apparent contempt of the judgment and order passed

by this Court dated 7.12.2020.

5.1. It is submitted that the allocation list approved by the

One Man Committee in the Final Report dated

20.06.2020 is final and the same is to be implemented

by the both the Power Utilities without justifying the

allocation list. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities

have devised office orders only to reopen and review

the allocation exercise which is already concluded and

approved by this Court (Direction No.I).

5.2. It is submitted that the retired / retiring employees are

not part of the financial burden as it was agreed by

both the sides to keep them out of allocation exercise.

It is submitted that financial neutrality was already in

place while preparing 655 = 655. It is submitted that

therefor, thereafter it does not lie in mouth of any

utility that retired / retiring employees are financial

burden on them.

5.3. It is further submitted that a perusal of the judgment

Page 27 of 54 dated 7.12.2020 would show that the objection of TS

Power Utilities with regard to excess allocation and

also with regard to the reciprocity, in respect of 655

number were categorically rejected and the final list

appended to the Concluding Report was expressly

affirmed. It is submitted that there is expressed

direction to the Power Utilities of both the States and

all concerned to implement the report of the One Man

Committee.

5.4. It is submitted that TS Power Utilities has been

involved in jugglery of figures and they have brought

new figures time and again to delay and confuse the

allocation process.

5.5. It is submitted that in terms of direction (VI) of the One

Man Committee both the TS and Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities were required to issue order of posting

of their joining and granting sufficient time to the

employee to report for duty. It is submitted that the

said direction has been followed by the Andhra

Pradesh Utilities, however Telangana Utilities /

Page 28 of 54 Telangana State has unilaterally altered the allocation

list and denied posting and joining orders to 84

petitioners, which is just contrary to the judgment and

order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 and the

Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. It is submitted

that the respondent contemnors have disregarded the

soul of the allocation exercise and are in serious willful

contempt of this Court.

6.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length. The present application has been preferred by

the 84 employees of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities who are relieved by the Andhra Pradesh

Power Utilities, alleging willful and deliberate

disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in

the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 approving the

concluding report / final report submitted by the One

Man Committee consisting of Justice D M

Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this Court. At this

stage, it is required to be noted that as such the

Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities have already relieved

Page 29 of 54 the petitioners. However, the respondent alleged

contemnors ­ Telangana State Power Utilities have not

permitted the applicants to join the duty in the

respective TS Power Utilities.

7.0. Before we proceed further to consider the present

application, the history which led to constitute of a

One Man Committee and chronological list and events

are required to be referred to and which as such had

been ultimately dealt with and considered by this

Court in the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 in

MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018

and other allied Applications, which are as under:

At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the

present case, the dispute is concerning the employees

of the Telangana State Power Utilities and Andhra

Pradesh Power Utilities.

7.1. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 was

enacted by Parliament to provide for the reorganization

of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh and for

matters connected therewith. By Section 3, Telangana

Page 30 of 54 State was formed comprising of the territories

mentioned therein and by virtue of Section 4, the State

of Andhra Pradesh was to comprise the territories of

the existing state of Andhra Pradesh. Section 82 of the

Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 reads as

under:

“82. Provision for employees of Public Sector Undertakings, etc.—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, corporation or autonomous bodies 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.”

7.2. The State of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh issued

government orders for Distribution Companies, for

Generation Companies and for Transmission

Corporation whereby assets and liabilities of the

aforesaid corporations and companies were

apportioned between the two new States along with the

posts sanctioned for the employees working in those

power sector corporations/companies. However, the

Power Utilities of the two newly formed States (Andhra

Page 31 of 54 Pradesh Power Utilities and Telangana Power Utilities)

could not arrive at any consensus with regard to

modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel.

The power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved

1157 employees working with power utilities of

Telangana to join in respective power utilities of

Andhra Pradesh. Number of employees filed writ

petitions in High Court challenging the decision of the

power utilities of Telangana. 242 employees, who were

working in power utilities of Andhra Pradesh got

themselves relieved and joined in power utilities of

Telangana. The power utilities of Telangana were

motivated by principle of nativity, i.e., those employees

whose service records mentioned them as resident of

any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh were

relieved and those who belonged to territory of the

newly formed State of Telangana were permitted to join

at Telangana by their self­option, against which writ

petition was filed before the High Court. The High

Court by its common judgment dated 02.02.2018

allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned

Page 32 of 54 action of power utilities of Telangana relieving 1157

employees and issued further directions. The High

Court specifically disapproved the principle of nativity,

which was the factor for allocation of the employees by

the Telangana State power utilities.

7.3. The matter reached to this Court and this Court

upheld the order of the High Court. However, noticing

that two States have not been able to arrive at any

consensus and to finally determine the modalities for

distributing the personnel between two States,

appointed One Man Committee consisting of Justice

D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of this Court. In

the order dated 28.11.2018 this Court specifically

made it clear that the decision of the One Man

Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties

including Power Utility Companies of the two States as

well as the employees and shall be executed by all the

parties as an order of this Court. This Court also

observed that in case any clarification or further

direction is required by any of the parties they are

Page 33 of 54 entitled to approach this Court by filing interlocutory

application in the proceedings.

7.4. That thereafter, after considering the representation by

all concerned and the respective stake holders, the

Committee on 17.04.2019 had finalised XIV modalities

to be adopted for allocation of the personnel between

two States in accordance with Section 82 of the

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. Thereafter,

the Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited

filed an application questioning the modalities

finalised by One­Man Committee. However, this Court

did not entertain the said application. That thereafter,

a report title as “Final Report of One­Man Committee”

dated 26.12.2019 was submitted by One­Man

Committee. Along with the report, a final allocation list

in the two States corporations/companies was

prepared and annexed. List of 655 personnel, who

were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh

utilities as submitted by sub­Committee Members on

behalf of Telangana utilities was approved by the

Page 34 of 54 Hon’ble One­Man Committee and was part of the final

list. That the Andhra Pradesh utilities were aggrieved

by the final list communicated in the final report filed

Interlocutory Applications. It was the case on behalf of

the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities that the modalities

have not been correctly implemented and the list

annexed is not in accordance with the modalities. This

Court disposed of the said application with following

observations:

“This Court by the final judgment having entrusted the work of allocation to one man committee, as agreed by parties, the modalities finalized by one man committee is binding on all, to which, there is no dissension between the parties. There being no dispute regarding modalities, in event, there is some error or mistake in the working of the modalities that can be pointed out to the same committee by means of a representation and we hope and trust that the committee shall look into the said grievance and correct the error, if any. We also make it clear that if the representation is submitted by the applicant, copy of the same shall be given to the power utilities of both the Sates, who may also have liberty to submit a response to those representation, which may be considered by the one man committee. The representation be submitted within two weeks and response thereto be also submitted within two weeks thereafter.” 7.5. After the order dated 24.01.2020, the One­Man

Committee after deliberations with all stakeholders

Page 35 of 54 submitted a Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020.

In the Supplementary Report, it was noticed that T.S.

power utilities relieved employees numbering total 655

to join A.P. power utilities. It also noted that Telangana

Power Utilities are agreeable to accommodate 71

employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State

companies as they are special cases like of spouses,

medical and handicapped employees or their

dependents.

7.6. In the Supplementary Report, the One­Man Committee

directed that the entire allocation process based on the

allocation list with the Final Report and

Supplementary Report be completed by 30.03.2020. A

clarification dated 13.03.2020 was also issued by the

One­Man Committee. Aggrieved by Supplementary

Report, the Telangana power utilities filed

Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2020 with regard

to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified by

Sub­Committee Members of Andhra Pradesh. This

Court disposed of the said application observing that

Page 36 of 54 the objections with regard to 584 employees were to be

considered by One Man Committee.

7.7. One­Man Committee after the order of this Court dated

01.05.2020 issued a Concluding Report dated

20.06.2020. In the Concluding Report, an allocation

list submitted by Andhra Pradesh utilities was

approved. The Committee noticed that 655 employees

have been allocated from Telangana State to Andhra

Pradesh and equal numbers from Andhra Pradesh to

Telangana including 71 names from Andhra Pradesh

to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases

like spouse and medical cases. Certain further

directions were given by the One­Man Committee in

the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approving

the list of Sub­Committee Members of the Andhra

Pradesh. In the Concluding Report, directions are to

the following effect:

“Directions:

I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para

21 of the Supplementary Report of this Committee regarding retired employees on both sides, it is further directed, that in both the States, employees who have attained or will be

Page 37 of 54 attaining 58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation process and their names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.

II. In the allocation process of the present dimension and undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts and service prospects of every employee. The allocation process has been finalized on laid down principles contained in the modalities and elbow room, wherever permissible, in the modalities has been given effect to. The committee however directs the Sub Committee member of AP to re­ examine any left out spouse and medical cases and every attempt should be made to accommodate them in the state of their option.

III. All SC/ST employees cases be reexamined to accommodate them as per modality VIII in the State where they are notified as SCs or STs so as not to affect their future service growth.

IV. All the employees finally allocated to a Public Utility will be paid regular salary from January 2020 and arrears of salary due with other benefits attached to the posts. The payments of salary partly or fully made by the Companies in the Two States in the interim period pending finalization of allocation during coronavirus pandemic, will be shared/reimbursed by the companies in the Two States mutually by paying and claiming reimbursement, if necessary, for the payments made in the interim period. It is made clear that the entire burden of salary and arrears of salary for each employee would be on the Company to which the employee is finally allocated and the said Company will reimburse interim payments pending allocation made if any by the Company to which the employee has not been finally allocated.

V. All employees not included in the Allocation

Page 38 of 54 List of AP and TS and serving on "order to serve"

basis in the Companies on the formation of the Two States in 2014 would be deemed to have been allocated to the Company where they are presently posted and working.

VI. Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP utilities will issue orders of posting and joining, with granting sufficient time to the employees to report for duties, keeping into consideration the constrains on movements in the current coronavirus pandemic period and the consequent lockdown imposed.

VII. All Employers of the Power Utilities in the Two States will facilitate smooth posting and joining of employees in the Companies of the Two States and the Government and the Police Authorities of Two States will cooperate and also facilitate the movement of the employees allocated from one Company in the State to Company in another Slate.

VIII. The allocation finally made by this committee is binding on both the employers and the employees and any violation thereof and non implementation of said allocation be reported to Supreme Court for remedial/Punitive action.”

7.8. After the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020, a

member of the Sub­Committee of Andhra Pradesh

power utilities sent a letter dated 26.06.2020 as

compliance report. By the said letter, 119 employees,

who were dropped from the list of incoming employees

from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra

Pradesh power utilities and further 50 names were

Page 39 of 54 dropped of employees in outgoing list of employees

from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana

State power utilities and 10 further employees were

relieved from Andhra Pradesh power utilities for the

reasons mentioned therein.

After submission of the Concluding Report dated

20.06.2020 and follow­up action taken by the Andhra

Pradesh Power utilities, number of miscellaneous

applications have been filed by Telangana State Power

Utilities, by several employees as well as employees’

associations. The Telangana State Power Utilities

Generation Corporation prays for the following reliefs:

“a) Clarify that the Concluding Report dated 20­ 06­2020 submitted by the Hon’ble One­Man Committee is illegal and arbitrary, being contrary to the Orders passed by this Hon’ble court and the Final Report dated 26­12­2019 submitted by the Hon’ble One­Man Committee.

b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees and 242 employees made by the Hon'ble One­Man Committee as per Final Report dt. 26­12­2018, (i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502 +242) to TS Power Utilities and 655 from TS to AP Power utilities), as Final in terms of the Order dt. 28.11.2018 passed in present Civil Appeal. c) Clarify that the allocation of 4460 and 71 employees (4531) to TS Power Utilities vide Final Report dt. 26.12.2019 and Supplementary Report dt. 11.03.2020, is final and no further allocation to TS Power

Page 40 of 54 Utilities is Permissible.

d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far as Para No.27, authorizing the Member, Sub­ committee of AP to unilaterally identify and allocate 584 employees to TS Power Utilities is contrary to the orders dated 28­11­2018 in Civil Appeal No.11435/2018.

e) Clarify the orders dated 28­11­2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 passed by this Hon'bIe Court; and

f) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

7.9. Similar prayers were made by other Telangana Power

Utilities. That by a detailed order dated 7.12.2020,

this Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications

filed by the Telangana State Power Utilities. While

dismissing the respective Miscellaneous Applications

filed by the Telangana State Power Utilities which

were dismissed after considering in detailed the rival

submissions/ objections against the final report dated

20.06.2020, certain observations are made by this

Court, which are very relevant while considering the

present application, which are as under:

Page 41 of 54

40. We may further observe that the list of 655 employees submitted by Telangana State power utilities for allocation to Andhra Pradesh power utilities has been approved by the One­ Man Committee for which there is no dispute.

The One­Man Committee has undertaken exercise to identify the list of 655 employees from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to be transferred to Telangana State power utilities. The proceeding to balance the number of employees from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities being 655, we fail to understand that how the applicants can raise the issue regarding number of allocable employees to be considered by this Court in these proceedings.

41. The submission which has been much pressed by the learned counsel for the applicants is that number of employees allocated to Telangana State power utilities is much more as compared to those which have been allocated from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. The applicants have repeatedly in their application and their objection before the One­Man Committee have referred to 502 out of 1157, 242 self­relieved employees and 71 spouse and medical cases plus 584 which have been permitted to be identified by Member of Andhra Pradesh Sub­ Committee. The submission is that 502+242+71+584 becomes 1399, hence 1399 have been allocated to Telangana State power utilities as against 655, which has been allocated from Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. We may need to look into the above submission on the basis of each figure claimed by the applicant.

42. Now, coming to figure 502, which according to the applicant is balance from 1157 by reducing it by 655. The 502 figure as noted above, 1157 is the number of persons, which were initially

Page 42 of 54 relieved by Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities unilaterally which decision was set aside by the High Court and was upheld by this Court. Out of 1157 only 655 have been allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities, which was approved by Final Report dated 26.12.2019 of the One­ Man Committee. How allocation of 502 is claimed when they are the employees, who remained on Telangana State without they being allocated to Andhra Pradesh power utilities apart from 655 from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. Further employees working in Telangana State were allowed to remain in Telangana State, hence, allocation from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655 and addition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.

43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number of self­relieved employees from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Admittedly, 242 employees are, thus, who got themselves self­ relieved from Andhra Pradesh without there being any order or without there being any direction by anyone. These 242 employees were permitted joining by Telangana power utilities by its own. These 242 employees having never been allocated to nor being part of any allocation cannot be added in figure by Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, which is agreed spouse and medical ground cases by both the parties. 71 is part of 655, which is now being identified by Andhra Pradesh to be allocated to Telangana State. By taking this no.71 in Supplementary Report permitting Andhra Pradesh to identify only 584, thus, it is only 584+71, i.e., 655 employees, which are now being sought to be allocated to the Telangana State by One Man Committee. We, thus, do not find any merit in the contention of the applicant that 1399 employees have been allocated to Telangana State as against 655 allocated from Telangana State to Andhra

Page 43 of 54 Pradesh.

46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165 was considered by the One­Man Committee, which is reflected from the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The above objection has been duly considered and answered by the One­Man Committee in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Concluding Report, which is to the following effect:­

“25. The second submission on behalf of TS is that with the Supplementary Report, this Committee had Identified total 2165 employees in the list given to AP Sub Committee member for proposing allocation from that list. It is urged on behalf of TS, that allocation list proposed by AP is not out of 2165 listed employees with the Supplementary Report of this Committee.

26. It is true, as urged on behalf of TS, that with the Supplementary Report, this Committee had identified 2165 employees bused on modality Nos. 5 which requires consideration of every employee for his home district and his adjustment as far as possible in the State in which his home district falls.

27. This Committee has to be open to correction. The Committee is also of the view that modality No. V alone is not decisive and modalities no. I to IV are to be cumulatively taken into consideration and applied to make allocation in proportion to the available posts in each Company in the Two States. TS side has accepted that 114 employees from out of 584 employees proposed for allocation by A.P to T.S are included in 2165 employees identified by this Committee in the lint

Page 44 of 54 annexed with Supplementary Report. The remaining 470 employees (falling outside 2165 employees identified with the supplementary report) have been proposed by A.P for T.S in the report of the Sub Committee Member. The justification shown is that it is to match the number of employees with the available posts in various companies.

28. In the above circumstances, mentioned above, this Committee finds the Allocation Lists company­wise and post­wise proposed by AP deserves approval and it is so approved.”

48. Now, one more objection of the applicants, which needs to be noticed is the objection that even the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 is not final report and Sub­Committee Member of Andhra Pradesh has been authorised to modify the list. Applicants have referred to direction Nos. I, II and III of the Concluding Report, which is to the following effect:­

I. In addition to the Directions contained in Para 21 of the Supplementary Report of this Committee regarding retired employees on both sides, it is further directed, that in both the States, employees who have attained or will be attaining 58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation process and their names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.

II. In the allocation process of the present dimension and undertaken after 5 years delay, it is not possible for the Committee to satisfy individual needs and comforts and service prospects of every employee. The allocation process has been finalized on laid down principles contained in the modalities and elbow room, wherever

Page 45 of 54 permissible, in the modalities has been given effect to. The committee however directs the Sub Committee member of AP to re­examine any left­out spouse and medical cases and every attempt should be made to accommodate them in the state of their option.

III. All SC/ST employees cases be reexamined to accommodate them as per modality VIII in the State where they are notified as SCs or STs so as not to affect their future service growth.

49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One Man Committee that those who have attained or will be attaining 58 Years of age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the allocation process and their names in the Allocation Lists will be removed. In Supplementary Report in paragraph 21, the One­Man Committee has stated:­

“21. It was also agreed by the Parties that all retired employees between years 2014 to 2020 in each Power Utility in each State need not be displaced only for pensioner benefits payable to them.”

50. The above indicates that both the parties had agreed before the One­Man Committee that all retired employees between years 2014 to 2020 in each power utility in each State need not be displaced. Thus, the above was agreement between both the parties before the One­Man Committee and direction No.I only an extension of the said agreement, i.e., whoever shall be attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall be kept out of allocation process. As per paragraph 21 of the Supplementary Report, those, who retire till then were already kept out of the allocation and the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be said to be unreasonable. The allocation process

Page 46 of 54 being not yet finalised and awaiting finalisation for last several years, those who retire either in Telangana State or Andhra Pradesh has rightly been decided not to be displaced only for the purpose of shouldering pensionary liability. The direction No.I is equitable.

51. The applicants further submit that after the Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 by letter dated 26.06.2020, Andhra Pradesh power utilities have struck 119 names from the incoming 655 list from the Telangana State power utilities to Andhra Pradesh power utilities. We are of the view that the said dropping is only consequential to the decision of the One­Man Committee as reflected in paragraph 21 of Supplementary Report and direction No.I of Concluding Report. The Andhra Pradesh power utilities have also deleted 50 names from the list of 584 employees outgoing from Andhra Pradesh power utilities to Telangana State power utilities, which was again in compliance of the One­Man Committee’s decision. Any consequential action taken in pursuance of the Concluding Report cannot be said to be not contemplated by the final Concluding Report or cannot be said to be an open ended report. The consequence of Concluding Report has to be taken to its logical ends. Further, 10 employees have been added by direction Nos. II and the reasons have been given in the letter dated 26.06.2020 for relieving them, which is again consequence of direction Nos.I and II. We, thus, are of the view that the One­Man Committee has considered all materials and objections placed before it by both sides including the representation of the employees and employees organisations submitted from time to time. The process which was initiated by submitting Final Report dated 26.12.2019 was supplemented by Supplementary Report dated 11.03.2020 and

Page 47 of 54 Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The One­ Man Committee being aware of all objections and having taken a conscious decision to finalise the allocation between two States, we do not find any such error in the process which may warrant any clarification or direction by this Court. We may further notice that the exercise undertaken by the One­Man Committee is to allocate 655 from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and same number from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. Apart from the above two allocations, other personnel, who were working in Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh were not disturbed by allocation.

52. Learned counsel for the applicants have also taken exception to reciprocity of 655 number. We do not find that there is any error in reciprocity. The One­Man Committee took a decision that when 655 employees are coming from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh, same number should go from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. In the Concluding Report, final list has been annexed, which is utility­ wise and personnel­wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We, thus, do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State power utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which are dismissed.”

8.0. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that this Court

specifically observed and held that the Final Report

dated 26.12.2019 submitted by the One Man

Committee along with allocation list is final and

conclusive and is binding to both the States and

Page 48 of 54 respective Power Utilities viz. Telangana Power

Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities. The only

exception was with respect to those employees who

attained the age of 58 years in the year 2020. Those

employees with the consent of the respective Power

Utilities were kept out of allocation process. It is to be

noted that the respective applicants – 84 petitioners

figured in the final list prepared by One Man

Committee. The names of the petitioners are duly

mentioned in the said list of the One Man Committee

Report which is prepared Utilities wise. Out of 84

petitioners and as per the Final List of 28 petitioners

had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 petitioners had to

be absorbed in TS Transco and 21 petitioners had to

be absorbed in TS Discoms. As observed herein

above, the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities

have already relieved respective petitioners and

thereafter they are no more continued with their

erstwhile employers – Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities

respectively. Therefore, once the names of the 84

petitioners figured in the Final List prepared by the

Page 49 of 54 One Man Committee and the Final Report has been

accepted and approved by this Court and it is directed

that both the States and their respective State Power

Utilities are bound by the Final Report of the One

Man Committee and Final List prepared and

communicated with the Supplementary Report / Final

Report, thereafter any deviation from the same would

tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions

issued by this Court. At this stage, it is required to be

noted that in the earlier order, this Court has

specifically observed and made it clear that the

decision of the One Man Committee shall be final and

binding on all the parties including the Power Utilities

Companies of the two States as well as employees and

shall be executed by all the parties as an order of this

Court. In that view of the matter, the respective

subsequent office orders dated 17.12.2020 (issued by

the TS Genco), office order dated 18.12.2020 (issued

by the TS Transco), office order dated 18.12.2020

( issued by the TSNPDCL) and the office order dated

19.12.2020 (issued by the TSSPDCL) are just contrary

Page 50 of 54 to the directions issued by this Court and contrary to

the Supplementary Report / Final Report submitted

by the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 which

would tantamount to willful disobedience of the

directions issued by this Court. Again, the Telangana

State Power Utilities have raised the same issues with

respect to the Reciprocity and Financial Neutrality,

which were earlier raised before this court by filing

respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came

to be dismissed by this court vide order dated

7.12.2020. Thereafter, to raise the same objections /

issues again by the Telangana State Power Utilities

would tantamount to willful disobedience of the

directions issued by this Court. Telangana State

Power Utilities cannot be permitted to raise the same

objections / issues again and again, which were

earlier raised before this Court and this Court held

against the Telangana State Power Utilities. There

must be an end to a litigation. By permitting the

Telangana State Power Utilities and /or any other

parties to raise the issues / objections again and

Page 51 of 54 again, the object and purpose of constituting One

Man Committee by this Court would be frustrated.

This Court purposefully directed to constitute the One

Man Committee consisting of Mr. Justice D M

Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this Court to put an

end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of

the employees and other disputes with respect to the

respective Power Utilities of both the States. It is very

unfortunate that the State of Telangana and

Telangana Power Utilities have continued to re­agitate

the issues, which are already held against them

earlier.

9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

we hold the respective Telangana Power Utilities for

willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment

and order passed by this Court dated 7.12.2020 in

MA No.1270 of 2020 in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018

and other allied Miscellaneous Applications and we

hold them guilty for the contempt for the same, for

which, they are liable to be suitably punished. At this

Page 52 of 54 stage, it is required to be noted that as observed

herein above, the petitioners are already relieved by

the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities since long and

because of the aforesaid office orders the respective

petitioners are not permitted to join in the respective

Telangana Power Utilities and their future is at stake

and they are without any salary from the date they

are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power

Utilities. Before we pass any further order on the

sentence / punishment, we give one additional

opportunity to the respective Telangana Power

Utilities i.e. TS Genco, TS Transco, TSSPDCL and

TSNPDCL to comply with the directions issued by this

Court in the final judgment and order dated

7.12.2020 and Concluding Final Report submitted by

the One Man Committee dated 20.06.2020 and to

absorb all the respective petitioners in the respective

Telangana Power Utilities / establishment as per the

list approved by the One Man Committee which would

have a direct bearing on the punishment / sentence

to be imposed. We give further two weeks’ time to

Page 53 of 54 respective Telangana Power Utilities / Corporation to

absorb the petitioners. We also direct the respective

Telangana Power Utilities viz. TS Genco, TS Transco,

TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to pay salary and other

service benefits to the petitioners from the day they

are relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power

Utilities, to be implemented within two weeks.

Put up on 31.10.2022 for further order.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. New Delhi, (A.S. BOPANNA) October 11, 2022.

Page 54 of 54