The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed irt support of the petition, the High Court ma',' be pleased to issue an interim di'oction directing the respondent both the Sitates forthwith consider the applicat on dt.5.11 .2021 along with prescribed profc'rma keeping in view of the Circular Vemos issued by both the states i.e., Stat,,: of Telangana Circular lt4emo No.1 8961SPF -1I12021 dt.9.9.2021 and Circular [/]erno of the State of Andhra Pradesh lr Circular [\ilemo No.l512868/5PFandSPl20',1.1 dt.7.102021 and also keeping in view of the Division Bench Judgment in W.F'.No.14006 and 1406212018 dt.12.1C.2018 pending disposal of the above Writ Pet tion. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. M.TEJASWINI FOR SRI P.V.RAMANA Respondent No.1: M/s. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES ll Respondent Nos.2,3 & 6: SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP FOR Counsel for the AP Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI S.SATYANARAYANA,, GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.No.l4134 OF 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'hle Sri Justice I'Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. M.Tejaswini, leamed counsel representing Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. M.Shalini, leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-Il for respondent No.1, Mr. B'Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Govemment Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh for respondent Nos'2, 3 and 6 and Mr. S.Satyanarayana, leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Perused the record'

2. The grievance of the petitioner being the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.t and 2 in taking an appropriate decision on the representation which the petitioner has made to the offrcers of respondent No.2 for considering allocation from the services of State of Andhra Pradesh to the services under the State of Telangana on the ground of the petitioner's spouse (wife) working in the Telangana State Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL), to a non-transferable post' 2 -TII

3. i-earne<l counsel for the petitioner contends that t[-re two State (iovemrnents, however, have shown a sympathetic r'Lpproach to the petitioner by sending the petitioner to thc State ol T,:langana on deputation and after completion of the l0 years, he: lias been sent back to ttu: State ofAndhra Pradesh.

4. '[he lezrned counsel for the further petitioner subrnits that the State of ,\ndhra Pradesh had issued a Circular Mer:ro dated 01 .10.2021 calling for the employees to exercise their oi)tlons to those vrho int.r:nd to go to the State of Telangana or1 p(. rmanent basis. The lrrst date for submission of such option was till

07.11.2021. 'f he petitioner has exercised his option for rnoving to the State of l-,:langana on permanent basis on the groun d of' the spouse of the petitioner working in the State of Telangana, on

05.11.2.021 i.r:, within the period prescribed under the Circular Memo dated 07.10.2021 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Goverrunent of Telangna also had issued a similar cilcular on reciprocal basir; vide Circular Memo dated 09.09.2021 and the last date for the e nrployees in the State of Telangana who u anted to move to the Strrte of Andhra Pradesh was on 15.10.202I [n terms 3 of the aforesaid Circular Memos issued by the two States' the petitioner's application which he had exercised his option within the period prescribed in the aforesaid Circular Memo, the same was also further forwarded to the next higher authorities by the authority under whom the petitioner was working' Therefore' there does not seem to be any further progress or a decision taken on the representation made by the petitioner' The petitioner had made his attempt by approaching atl the authorities known to him for a favourable consideration of his request for permanent allocatioh to the State of Telangana, but till date he has not been able to get any success which finally led to the petitioner approaching the writ court by filing writ petition for appropriate direction to the respondent-authorities to be given'

5. Given the factual matrix narrated above and also on perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition' admittedly the petitioner in tetms of the Circular Memo dated 07 J02021 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh has exercised his option on

05.ll.2O2l before the competent authority in the department' who' in tum, had forwarded the same to the next higher authorities vide 4 order dated 0ii.11.2021. However, the outcomc ol- ih: said represenl.ation is still not given either to the petitioner nLrr as any - older has been ,: rmmunicated to the petitioner insofar as decision, if any, taken on :hc said application filed by the petitioner. So 1ar' I as the writ court is concemed, we are conscious of the l-act that at this stage, the rvrit court would not have any power and sc ope to adjudicate upon the grievance of the petitioner. Nonetheless, the writ court can cetinitely direct the respondent authorities. more particularly resp,rndent Nos. 1 and 2, to takc necessat'y s1 .-ps in ensuring the petition if the petitioner had fited before the competent authority in thr: department in which he works, on 05. I 1.20 I I seeking Ibr allocation to the State of Telangana on perrnancn t basis in terms of th: Circular Memo issued by the two States on

09.09.20'.Zl and 07.10.2021 i.e., the State of Telangana as also by the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively in accordance rvir-h law and any circular guidelines framed in respect of allocation of the employees inter re between the States

6. Accordinllly, the writ petition, at this juncture. stands disposed of directing respondent Nos.l and 2 to take apprc,priate 5 decision on the pending application of the petitioner dated

05.11.2021 in accordance with the scheme and guidelines goveming the field of allocation as it then stood on the date when the Circular Memo was issued, at the earliest within a period of 90 days. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ I To ,TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,,1 sEcTloN oFFrcER 1 2

4. q o-

7. o '10 The Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Dr.BR.AmbedkarTelangana Secretariat Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. The Principal.Secretary, I and CAD Department, Dr. B. R.AmbedkarTelangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Engineer-in-Chief (Administration), I and CAD Department Jalasoudha Building, Errummanzil, Hyderabad The Engineer-in-Chief (Administration), Water Resources Department Vijayawada. One CC to SRI P.V.RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.14134 of 2025 Ar> s \ t\. ^ ..1 :'.'' l) ;: I 1. ,a \.> DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?4 ,r1 \