Sri A.Ramakrushna v. IVla n a g i n g D i recto

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, GP on behalf of SRI P.GOVIND REDDY, Counsel for AP Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made:the following: COMMON ORDER IN THI} HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HITDERABAD THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKOTTDA DATEz 3L.12.2O25 WRIT PETITION NOS.18973 AND 1 9988 0F 20.2L Between: A.Ramal<rushna S/o late A.N i.' age'Swara Rao. AND The Telangana State Power General Corpora':ion Limited. COMMON ORDER ...Petitioner ..Respondent These two Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying this court to issue a writ, Order <lr Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the l"trespondent in isriuing letter Nos.CMD/Dir(HR/DS (Estt) /AS (EStt)/ L74l2Ol7-1, dated O5.Ol.2o2t, tetter No.Dir (HR)/DS (Estt) AM(HR)/ L4/2o2o-1, dated 21.al.2o21 to be bad in law and to quash or set aside the s€une. conseq.uenfly to direct lst respondent to accept t]le reqrrest of the lletitioners for being repatriated to the 1"t respondent- PSK,J&NNR,J wp_|8973&19988_2021 () corporation and grant promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer from the date on which his/her juniors stood promoted, as per seniority list, dated 10.05.2013. Further to grant all the benefit (seniority and moneta_ry that woutd flow out of the reliefs and prayed to release the sarne together with interest at reasonable rate.

2. Heard Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh- respondent No.2 and Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent No.5.

3. Brief facts of the case in w.P.No.19988 of 2021 are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds on demise of her father. She reported to duty on 13. L2.Lggs and subsequently she was promoted as Junior Accounts office (JAo) on 31.08.2010. Her seniority in the said cadre was maintained in the Page 3 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp-18973&19988_2021 Seniority unit of Srisailam Left Bqk Hydro Electrical Schemr:. In the seniorit5r list, she was shown at Sl.No.13. It is further stated that for considering the unit of the petitioner, the entire Corporation (APGENCO as it then was) would be the unit of appointment. The Seniority upto the JAOs would be Division-wise, and as such integrated seniority list is to be prepared for the purpose of determining th,e Zor.e of consideration for promoting JAOs and AAOs. 3(al. It is further stated that the erstwhile State of Andhre Pradesh was bifurcated and a new State of Telangzrna was formed by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh Re- organisation Act 2OL4, w.e.f. 02.06.2014. The erstwhile APGENCO issued order on 31.05.2014 allotting certain JAOs to worl: temporarily in APGENCO and TSGENCO. 3(bl. It is further case of the petitioner that the respon,lents informed ttrat where promotions are ordered in parent department of persons who are sent on 'deputation' would be considered cornmonly called the hext below rule'. Howevt:r, treating the petitioner to be perrnanently moved out of TSGENCO promotion orders of Assistant Accounts Page 4 of32 PSKJ&NNR,J wp .18973&19988_2021 (l officers was published oh tg.o6.2o17. Meanwhile, the provisional seniority list of JAos was drawn by APGENCO on 26.10.2020 and the petitioner's name was not included therein. The objections were called for and the petitioner submitted her representation to include her name in the seniority list of JAos, by APGENCO or repatriate her to parent unit i.e., TSGENCO. 3(cl. On 21.O1.2021, the TSGENCO has issued proceedings dated 21.o1.2021 stating that the term 'd.eputation'is not contemplated in regulations in vogue for transfer/allotment of employees from one place to another within the organizatton and for allocation of the employees between two entities based on their nativity. Finally, the order stated that her original transfer Memo dated

31.05.2014 cannot be considered as'deputation' and issuing of orders for repatriation of her services from APGENCo to TSGENCo at this length of time is not correct. 4- Brief facts of the case in w.p.No.l89z3 of 2o2l are as follows: Initially the petitioner was appointed as Junior plant Attendant on compassionate grounds and he reported to E-i -/ Page 5 of32 PSK,J&NNR"J wp_l897j&/,9988_2021 duty on 15.02.1999. By virtue of seniority and clean record of servir:e, he was promoted as Junior Accounts Officer on l7.A3.2OLt. His seniorit5r as JAO was maintained in the senioritF unit of the Srisailam Left Bank Hydro electrical Scheme. The petitioner was shown at Sl.No.25. lt is further stated that from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, the entire Oorporation would be the unit of appointment. The seniority upto the Junior Accorrnts Officers would be Divisiorr Wise and as such, in integrated Seniorit5r List is to be prel>ared for the purpose of d.etermining the zone of consideration or promoting JAOs and AAOs. The seniority of JAOs u,ould be the basis on whiah integrated seniority is made.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that the seniority was maintarned at Srisailam Left Bank Power House, which falls within Telangana State and the petitioner was sent on deputal.ion to Andhra Pradesh Power Development Compa:ry Limited, a subsidiar-y of APGENCO, duly mainta:ning the lien and seniorit5r at the parent Unit i.e., SLBHES/Srisailam Dam West and as such, he has been workinll at SDSTPS / NELATUR.- Page 6 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_18973& 19988_2021 o

6. This €!.rr€rngement was made based on his request for medical grounds. Further, it is averred that concept of 'deputation'is not contemplated in the existing regulations that governs employee transfer/allotment from one place to another within the organisation and for allotment of employees between two entities based on their nativity. Finally, it is stated that the transfer order in memo dated

01.10.2013, The term 'deputation' cannot be considered as deputation and issuance of orders for repatriation of services from APGENCO to TGGENCO at this length of time was not correct. Further, it was contended that the provisional seniority list of JAOs was published by APGENCO on 26.LO.2020 and his name was not included therein. Despite submitting objections and multiple requests for repatriation, neither APGENCO included his narne in their JAO Seniority list nor TSGENCO allow him to return to his parent department. Instead of doing the needful i.e., repatriate him back to the parent department or included him in the senior list of APGENCO, the authorities simply added a remark in the final seniority list in response to his objections, whitTrleads thus: PageT of32 PSK,J&NN&J wp 1897j&19988 2021 "As the SLBHES Station comes under Zone -5. Which is covered under Telangana State,the TSGENCO has issued a proceeding dated O5.OL.2O21 which is rather peculiar if not funny. It would state that the term deputation is not contemplated in regulations in transfer/allotment of employees between two entities based on their nativity."

7. It .s further contended that the petitioner tempora.ily deputed to the APGENCO until further orders. Accordingly, she har; been working at present place of posting as JAOs admittedly on a temporary deputation basis. It is further conten<led that with the bifurcation of the States, the question of allotment of the employees of the Corporations were subject matter of State of litigation. A One-Man Commiltee was constituted for the purpose of allocation of employees to the respective States. Options were called for by the committee for the employees. Since deputation order clearly shows that his seniority is being maintained by unit which lalls within the generation of the State of Telangana, he has opted for being allotted to Telangana. Though, in terms of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act 20 [4, the employees of local, District, Zortal, and Multi zor:.al, which fall entirely in one of the State shall be deemed -o --- Page 8 of32 PSK,J&NN&J wp_18973&l 9988 _202 I i--.-- [,,) :" -\ to be allotted to the successive State. Since it was held by him in substantial capacity in the State of Telangana, as lien was maintained in the seniority unit of TSGENCO, he deemed to be an employee of TSGENCO.

8. However, his option was not accepted, though it was initially added in the list drawn out for that purpose in the final list, his name was deleted from the list of office and on oral enquiry. He came to know that as he being att employees of TSGENCO, and as such for the refusing of the option was not necessarJr, and it is only for the State employees. Even though he made a representation to get himself repatriated to the parent unit i.e., Telangana, the sarne was not considered and no response came forward from the respondents.

9. It is further contended that the order passed by the l"trespondent and posting him at Sri Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Power Station makes it clear that his lien would be maintained in the parent unit of Srisailam Left Bank, which falls within the State of Telan gana, as such he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, on a reading of Memo, dated 01.10.2013, makes it very clear Page 9 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp 1897j&19988 2021 that thr: seniority is being maintained by unit which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Telangana. The spr:cific direction was that he has been temporarily deputec. to rvork in APGENCO and that he had no role to play in authorizing the said memo. Further, this Court stated lhat he had no role to play in authonzing the said Memo. It is stated that taking advantage of . the wrong argr-rment that deputing him to work in Nellore with lien maintained in the seniority list falls under TSGENCO. 1(}. Further, he has no interest in the seniority list of both APGENCO and TSGENCO, And thereby he was deprived of his rigtrtful seniority to provide protection in either of the Corporations and the same is liable to be remedied since the TSGENCO is projecting a very peculiar reason for not agreeing to his repatriation and it has become necessar5r for him to approach this Court seeking relief.

11. Respondent No.2 filed counter-allidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner was working with the SLBHES and also contenting that she was transferred to headquarters of APGENCO in 2OO5 in the cadre of U.D.C from Srisailam Project, duly maintaining a lien at the parent unit i.e., Page 10 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp-l 897j&l 9988_202 I n SLBHES. Later, she was prbmoted as JAO and was posted at where she joined the duty as she worked in the headquarters of APGENCO on deputation basis, duly maintaining her lien and seniority in the parent unit of Jurala. It is a-lso admitted that while allocation of the projects after the bifurcation was made based on geographical locations and Duo Project covered under TSGENCO. It is further contented that furnishing integrated seniority list to the JAOs working in Andhra Pradesh, the name of the petitioner was not included in the integrated seniority list, as seniority is being maintained at the Jurala/DSG and she is working in APGENCO on deputation basis only.

12. It is further contended that based on the personal representation dated 02.ll.2O2O of the petitioner for repatriation to TSGENCO, a letter dated. 22.12.202O has been addressed to the l"t first respondent and requested to issue the repatriation orders to the first respondent to enable her to relieve from the 2'drespond.ent corporation and the same has been rejected with invalid reasons. It is further contented that the petitioner was continued on deputation to work in x Page 1l of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_I8973&19988_2021 residual APGENCO.

13. It is further submitted that the order dated 31.O5.2O14 of the petitioner has been repatriated to the parent department i.e., Jurala and on deputation she has to work temporarily in APGENCO duly maintaining her lien and senioritl'at Jurala. Further, as the petitioner is not covered under the State Cadre category as the employees working in .L, the porvrer generation stations in the cadre of JAOs were fallen under zonal category not State cadre. The Honble Suprem,: Court and One-man Committee appointed by the suprem,: court of India dealt specifically with the alocation of Stal.e Cadre Employees between APGENCO and TSGENCO. The one-Man committee has called for the options from the State cadre employees of APGENCO. Accordirrgly, the Zonal cadre employee's options were not considered though some zonal employees working on deputaton at the corporate office/APGENCo. Since the petitionr:r falls under the Zonal category with her lien maintained at Jurala Project TSGENCO, hence her options was not considered and she was not included in tlee allocatic,n list prepared by one-Man committee. Further, Page 12 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_l 8973&19988_202 I n based on the request of the employees who are working at the corporate oflice on deputation from TSGENCO units, their narnes were separately submitted for consideration of One-man Committee, but the same was not accepted by the Committee due to the character of JAOs., und.er the category. It is further submitted that though letter was I r' addressed to CMD/TS Genco for seekirtg repatriation to her parent unit at Jurala, but they have been rejected by TSGENCO for the reasons stated above, learning her in the 'state of administrative limbo', neither properl5r absorbed into APGENCO with appropriate seniority recognition nor allowed to return to her parent department where her original lien is maintained. L4. It is further contented that while the integrated seniority list of the JAOs working in APGENCO, the name of the petitioner was not included due to her lien and seniority, which being maintained at Jurala /TSGENCO unit and working in APGENCO on d.eputation basis only.

15. The respondent No.4-TSGENCO filed counter made in the passion and contending that the petitioner stands allocated to APGENCO in terms of the One-Man Committee =E \ \ Page 13 of32 PSK,J&NNR"J wp_[8973&19988_2021 report and the petitioner alleged to have made a representation dated 20.12.2020, repatriation of her services from AF'GENCO to TSGENCO. The APGENCO vide letter dated'.12.12.2O2O, addressed to TSGENCO to issue repatriation orders to the petitioner. The said letter of APGENC:O dated 22.12.202O and the TSGENCO letter dated

05.01.2(121 informing that issge of repatriation of service of the petitioner from APGENCO to TSGENCO is not viable and treated it as rejected.

16. It is further contented that in terms of the decisions directiorrs of the Supreme Court vide its order dated

28.11.2018 and 07. 12.2O2O, reported in {2O18 (SCC online SC. 364,1f and l202I- (U SCC 4891 any dispute with regard to the allocation of Power Utilities Companies is not maintairrable before this Court. Further, it is stated that the petitiont:r has an option to approach the Honble Supreme Court, wherein similar orders passed by this court in W.P.No. 31856 of 2O2l dated 18.O t.2O22, and when the similar issue was arose in W.P.No.498l of 2021 vide order dated O3.O2.2O22, dismissed the writ petition leaving it open to the parties to approach the Hon'lcle Supreme Court. : I .r::ri;j -..lli* Page 14 of32 G PSK,J&NNR,J wp_I8973&19988 2021

17. Respondent Nos.13 and 5 also filed qn additional counter-affidavit and contending that the relief which is sought by the petitioners is not maintainable before this Court as similar writ petitions filed by lhe parties were dismissed leaving it open to approach the Honble Supreme Court of India. n8. It is further stated that as the grievances as projected are only against the APGENCO and since the APGENCO is situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the petitioner urs-d.urs the ' APGENCO. It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 31.05.2014, the petitioner is not an employee of the TSGENCO, therefore, the seniority list of the JOAs. of the TSGENCO, and the consequential promotions have no bearing with regard to the grievances of the petitioners and she has to work out as to her seniorit5r with the APGENCO only. It is further contented that letter dated 21.0L.2o21 was communicated to the Managing Director, ApGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Gunad.ala, E1uru, Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, State, and the representation made by the petitioner is devoid of merits and the letter was not I I I I Page 15 of32 PSK,J&NN&J wp_L897j&19988_202 I communicated to the writ petitioner. Since the petitioner was not com municated with the proceedings and it is purely internal correspondence between the TSGENCO and APGENC:O, the said communication cannot be challenged by the petil.ioner in the present petition. The petitioner has to work ou! remedies against its own employer, but not against this resprondent. :

19. Further, the petitioner grievance can only be resolved by the APGENCO as she is deemed to be allocated to APGENC)O in terms of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court and she has to work out her remedies with the APGENC)O only and that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supremr: Court, dated O7.I2.202O has attained Iinality. In view of the concluding report of Jttstice D.M.Dluz:nnadhlkan'1., Judge, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India fcrr allocation of employees of the power utilities between the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Prad.esh. The One-Man Committee submitted his final report dated 26.12.2019 andrthereafter supplementary report dated

11.O3.2{)2O and conclusion report dated 20.06.202O. In the conclud:.ng report, it was recorded as follows. A11 the Page 16 of32 PSK,JANN&J wp_l 897j&19988_202 I ) employees not included in the allocation list of T.A. and serving on an order to serve basis in the companies on the formation of the two States in 2Ol4 would be deemed to have been allocated to the company

20.. It is further stated that the then State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 53 of the Act, 2OI4'itssued G.O.Ms.No.25, Enerry (CC) Department, dated 2g.O5.2O14 for creation of GENCO for Telangana State in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2Ol4 for allotment of common services staff for ' ,AndhralTelangana by dividing the 'sanctioned strength in the Region' with the 'total sanctioned strength of APGENCO excluding Head Quarters.' It is stated that based on the said principle, the posts of headquarters are transferred to both the GENCOs as detailed in Annexure-B to the said G.O. In Finance & Accounts Department, total posts are 65 in the cadre of Junior Accounts Officer. Out of which, 32 were allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and 33 to the State of Telangana. The writ petitioner was allotted to APGENCO from among Junior Accounts Officers working in Head Office, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad vide proceedings, dated a--''-- '- " ' (. Page t7 of32 PSK,J&NNR"J wp 1897j&19988 2021

31.05.2C 14, issued by the APGENCO. The petitioner in W.P.No.19988 of 2021 has been working in APGENCO w.e.f.

02.06.2O 14 onwards. 2L. It i:; also stated that the then APGENCO issued Memo, dated 3t.05.2014 allocating JAOs., who are working at Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, while their lien and seniority mentioned _against their narnes in other respective units and on deputation they have to work temporarily in APGENCO and TSGENCO and in the said list the petitioner's name is shown at S1.No.3 and he was allocated to APGENCO.

22. Further, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.N o.29, dated 31.05.2014, wherein para No.2 of the said G.O. specifies a scheme of providing for and gives effect to transfer of Assets, Properties, Liabilities, Obligations, Proceedings, Personnel etc., relating to whole business of APGENCO. As per said G.O., transfer of employees between two GENCOs shall be as per the guidelines meant for government employees. Pending such transfer, all permanent employeeri were transferred to TSGENCO duly following the guidelines for allotment of staff. The petitioner, who was working in the Headquarters, Hyderabad, as on the effective Page 18 of32 ) PSK,J&NNR,J wp-l 8973&19988-202 I i.e., on 02.06.2014 was allotted to APGENCO in terms of proceedings, dated 3L.o5.2oL4. The petitioner was allotted to APGENCO and her narne does not find place in the posts sanctioned to TSGENCO. Thereafter, the APGENCO shifted its headquarters from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and the petitioner has been continuing to work in APGENCO Headquarters at Vijayawada.

23. In reply to the counter filed by the respondent No.4, the petitioner filed reply to the counter filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.4981 of 2O2l and W.P.No.31856 of 2021, contending that the same are not applicable, as he/she has been holding a"Zonal cadre post, the allotment which never formed the subject matter of discussion by the One Man Committee. It is further stated that he belongs to zonal cadre vouched by the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of APGENCO. The relevant portion as has been averred at para No.7 reads as follows: 'Options were called from all the state cadre employees of APGENCO. Accordingly, the zonal cadre employee,s options were not considered though some zot:ral employee working on deputation in Corporate Office/ApGENCO." l. Page 19 of32 PSK,J&NN&J wp_t 8973&19988_2021

24. It is further stated that the fact that the respondents either of the APGENCO or the TSGENCO should have counted the seniority of the petitioner because the State has been bilurcated. [t is further stated that his senioriQr is not being considered in either of the GENCOs and this can never stand tcr the scrutiny of the Court.

25. In W.P.No.l8973 of 2919, learned counsel for the petition,:r argued and contended that the petitioner, who was under the control of O&M/SLBHES and transfer of controt and Chief Manger O&M/SDSTPS against one existing . vacancy until further orders. His lien and seniority shall be maintained at his parent unit only. Subsequently he was relieved on 25.11.2013. Pursuant to the Memo, dated

28.11.2013, the petitioner was once again reposted from SLBHEIi to SDSTPS. Pending the same, as bifurcation of united Andhra Pradesh took place on 02.O6.2014 and on

05.OL.2021,considering the representation of the petitioner as per his Service Records as he is native of Rayalaseema of Andhra Pradesh and pursued his studies upto Graduation from Kurnool. He further submits that considering the grounds that his wife needs regular medical checkup and Page?O of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_18973&1 9988_202 t t' o also considering that he has responsibitity to look after the old aged grandparents since his parents expired. He was transferred and posted to the control of the CE/O&M/SDSTPS against the existing vaqancy in the said letter, it is stated that it is in appropriate usage of the term' deputation' and the said term of 'deputation' is not contemplated in the Regulations in vogue for transfer of employees from one place to another within the organization, rather it should have been treated as request transfer from one place to another place.

26. Further as per G.O.No. lO/22.01.1993, the maximum deputation period allowed to an employee as prescribed therein is only 5 years and in the present case, the incumbent was transferred from SLBHES to SDSTPS on O1.1O.2O13, at his personal request against the existing vacancy avaitable at SDSTPS at the relevant time i.e., at the time of bifurcation of composite State of Andhra Pradesh in view of G.O.Ms.No.25, Energr (CC) Department, dated 29.O4.2OL4 read witl.. Circular Memo No.19 184/SR/AI /2OL.4, dated 05.11 .2OL4, all the District cadre and, zonal cadre employees other than state cadre :rr r -i! Page2l of32 PSKJA,NN&J wp-18973&19988-202 I employees are deemed to have been allocated to the respectirre Power Utilities wherever they are working as on

02.06.2O 14. As per direction No.V of the concluding report dated 20.06.2O2O of the One-Man Committee constituted by the Hon ble Supreme Court.

27. He further contended that as per the said report of One-man Committee constituted by Honble Supreme Court wherein it is stated that 'all the employee not included in the allocation list of AP & TS and serving on 'order to serve'basis in the cr)mponies on the formation of the two states in 2014 would tre deemed to have been allocated to the company where they are presently posted and working.' He further contended that transfer of petitioner cannot be termed as 'deputation' attd on the said ground and so also in view of One-Man Committee Report. He also submits that transfer petitionr:r in W.P.No.lB973 of 2O2L from SLBHES to SDSSTF'S as ordered in Memo 01.10.2013 cannot be termed as deputation and issuing of repatriation orders for his services from APGENCO to TSGENCO at this point of time is not viatrle and accordingly repatriation was not considered and the saJne was rejected. Page22 of32 () !.1 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_l8973&19988_2021 28, Further, he also argued that the said order was not commrtnicated, immediately, he submitted several representations, one of which dated 02.Ci6.2o17, wherein the petitioner sought for cancellation of his 'deputation' and. also seeking to consider his case on lien and seniority on par with other colleagues working at srisailam Project. In the said representations, the'petitioner sought for to consider his case and restore his lien and seniority at sLBHES/TSGENCO to APPDCL/SDSTPS and finatly on 20.04.2o2L and 30.03.2021 he made representation to the Chief Generral Manager, O&M, APPDCL, SDSTPS, Nelatur (V), MuthUkur Mandal, s.P.s.R. Nellore District and the same was forwarded to the Chief General Manager (Admn.IS&ERP), APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, 3'd Floor, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra pradesh. 29. [t is further argued and contended that as on the date of passing of the impugned order, dated 0S.O t.2O2L, the request of the petitioner for repatriation of his services from APGENCo to TSGENCo was not considered as the petitioner was not viable and was rejected. He further argued that as it is only 'deputation'post though he was having lien over his post and he was havi"gl"Ehance in view bifurcation subject Y Page 23 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_[8973&19988-2021 to condition that his lien over the post of seniority will be maintairred. He further contended that the petitioner is still continuing to be an employee of TSGENCO, as sLrch the contentirrn that as he was serving the APGENCO as on the date of bifurcation cannot treated as an employee of APGENC)O. He also contended that as per Memo, dated

01.10.2O13 seniority list is maintained. A11 these are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Telangana State, and basing on which deputation has no role in the State. In view of bifurcation as he was kept in APGENCO, balance of convenir:nce is in his favour, the seniority he was forced alleged 'nrhich has denied for promotion of JAOs and AAOs, in accorlance with law.

30. The contention of the respondents is that 'deputation' is misnomer and therefore the question of repatriation does not arisr: and also cannot help the respondents to justify the impugnt:d action as acceptance of that statement which would amount to paying a premium to the wrong doer as the petitionr:r has no role to play in the language employed in the order. It is further argqed that the respondents cannot treat the petitioner in W.P.No.19988 of 2021 as an employee of .b \i, Page24 of32 PSK,J&NN&J wp,18973&19988 2021 l,; /^() TSGENCO on the basis of One-Man Committee report. He also further contended that the APGENCO never considered her name while preparing provisional seniority list and did not include her in the said final list in terms of the APGENCO. In spite of not treating her as an employee of APGENCO, she was not repatriated though several representations were submitted ":beeking repatriation. Though the petitioner has opted being elected to TSGENCO, her lien and seniority was maintained in the unit which was under the State of TSGENCO and the petitioners objections 'was not'accepted though it was initially for the purpose, however in the finat list, her namb was deleted. Though she has made representations from time to time requesting the respondents to repatriate her to parent u.nit, the same would not yield any result. None of the representations has been considered by the respondents. He also further pointed out that as per G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 31.05.2014, which was issued in respect of transfer scheme following the reorganization. Further, the Act requires the state of Andhra Pradesh to initiate activities relating to creation of successor States inctuding apportionment of assets, liabilities, Page 25 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_l 897 3&1 9988 _202 I employees, contracts etc., between the two successor States. He also pointed out that as per sanctioned posts for Telanganra Region, Projects located in Telangana State shall stand trrrnsferred to TGGENCO with effective date. The posts at APG ENCO Head quarters shall divided between two GENCOT; based on the principles described. Further, an employee's lien on a post may under no circumstances be terminal:ed, even with his consent, if the result will be to leave h:im without a lien or a suspended lien upon a permant:nt post. It is also pointed out that the special provisiorrs of Regulatiorr 27, the Corporation may transfer an employee from one post to another, provided he holds a lien or woul<l hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under Regulation 24.

31. Admittedly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprem,: Court in Telangana Power Generation Corpora.tion Ltd (TSGENCOI v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., and othersl, wherein the Honble Supreme Court constituted One-Man Committee of Justice D.M.Dharmadhirai, by an order, dated 28.L1.2018 t zotS scc online sc 3644 Page26 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_l 8973& I 9988 _202 t .'i and fixed the modalities and finalized the allocation of the employees working in Corporations and Companies in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Power Sector. Unlike allocation of employees in Government services in thq case of Public Undertakings, the provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act provided for allocation of employees on the basis of modalities to be determined mutually by "the corporation/companies in Public Sector.

32. The modalities and directions of the One-Man Committee at paragraph No.V it was held as follows: "Att emplogees not included in tle Allocation List of AP and TS and seruing on "order to serueo basis in tlrc Companies on the formation of tte Tuo States in 2014 uould be deemed to haue been allocated to the Compang where ttwg are presentlg posted and working."

33. All the employees of allocation lists of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana utilities will issue order 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 corona virus pandemic'period and the consequent lockdown imposed. g4. Learned counsel for the respond.ents argued and contended that as this Court has got power to entertain writ Page27 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_|897j&19988-2021 petitions on the ground that the Honble Supreme Court while appointi:tg One-Man Committee also accepting it as final and it is bin<ling on all the Committees and union Committees as well as employees directing that it shall be executed by all the authorities as an order of the Court.

35. Fu::ther at paragraph No.2O of the report it was held as follows: " However, in case, any clarification of further direction is rerluired by any of the parties they are entitled to approach this Court by f,rling interlocutory application in these prrrceedings."

36. It was also pointed by learned counsel for the respondents at paragraph No.24 of the Supplementary Report, dated 11.03.2020, which reads as follows: On behalf of TS Power Utilities it has been conveyed in writing to this Committee that TS Power Utilities are agreeable to accommodate 7 | employees from AP side to TS Companies whor;e names are mentioned in Annexure-I-A, Annexure-l-B, Annt:xure-I-C as they are special cases like of Spouses, Medical, Hanrlicapped employees or their dependants which are special catel;ory of cases covered by Modatities to [X to XIII." 37- It \vas also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4that in similar issue, this court without going into the merits of the case, passed order dated 03.02.2022 in w.P.No.4()81 of 2o2l and w.p.No.31g56 of 2o2L, dated Page 28 of32 PSK,J&NNR"J wp_l 8973&19988_2021 n /...'.

18.01.2022 while taking into consideration the order, dated

28.L1.2018, of the One-Man Committee comprising of the Honble D.M.Dharmadhikari, Judge, (Retd.) Supreme Court).

38. The order passed in W.P.No.31856 of 2021 reads as follows "The petitioner before this Court has filed this writ petition with a prayer for issuanc. oi .., appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents to allocate the petitioner to the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TSTRANSCO). The undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that the matter relating to allocation of employees of the TSTRANSCO '*,as subjected to judiciat scrutiny before the Honble Supreme Court and the Hon'lole Supreme Court, while passing an order in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 on 28.11.2018 has observed as under:- oWe make it clear that the decision of the one man Committee head by Justice Dharmadhikari 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." The one man Committee headed by Hon'ble Justice Dharmadhikari has finally submitted a report considering the cases of each and every individual for the purpose of allocation to the TSTRANSCO and the Andhra Pradesh Power General Corporation Limited (APGENCO) and by virtue of the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court, the report of the Committee has also been executed. The order passed by the Honble Supreme Court dated 28.11.2018 makes it very clear that the decision of the one man Committee shall be executed by all the parties as an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the order of the one man Committee has to be executed as an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Page?9 of32 PSK,J&NNR.J wp 1897j&19988_2021 Court, the remedy does not lie before this Court and it lies somewhere else. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for ventilating the grievance in the matter. [rarned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that thr: petitioner be granted liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He is certainly at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, <lated 28. 11.20 18, it is made clear that the decision of the One- man committee which was executed by all the parties as an order of the Division Bench, considering it as opinion of this Court. Further grantinll liberty to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court as requested and disposed of the writ petitions."

39. Her,-', it is the case of the petitioners that responderlts have not included their names in the seniority list of TSGENCO or APGENCO, in such circumstances, it is contended that 'deputation' cannot be treated as 'transfer' or even otherwise the respondents have to nraintain petitioners' lien over the post in their parent unit. The final modalities of the allocation of the persons br:tween APGENCO and TSGENCO in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act, 2OL4 i.e., Regulation IX, which reads as follows oCase of alleviation of extreme personal hardship of State Government employees will be exceptions to tl.e principrle. It would be open to Committee to consider the represontation or request of allocation on case to case basis." .b \, dr"4 Page 30 of32 PSK,J&NNR"J wp_|8973&l 9988_2021 ,-rf'r a\ 4o. Even as per the supplementary report, dated LL.O3.2O2O at page No.96 of the Additional Counter at Direction -V it was stated as follows: "lt is made clear, that employees "other than those" included in the T\ro Allocation lists Annexed to the Final and Supplementary Report, working on the appointed date 02.06.2014, on oorder to serve" basis in the Companies in the two States will be treated to have hgen allocated to the respective Companies in the Two States in continuous service "as is 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." 4L. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TelangFna Power Generation Corporation Ltd v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generatlon Corporation Ltd.and othersz, it whs held as under: "With regard to other MAs, which have been noticed above, we make it clear that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution'of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been Iinalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocation made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or ofEcer is entertainable, we clariff that the One-Man Committee having completed the process of allocation, the said allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before any forum. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in different MAs, they need no consideration in these proceedings and employees of 'z0tg SCc online SC 3644 Page 31 of32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_1897i&l 9988_202 I power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before appropriate forum in accordance with law. AII other MAs are disposed of accordingly."

42. In view of the above discussion and taking into consider:rtion the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Bench is of the opinion that having taken lien on the post of the petiticners in their parent unit, the petitioners are bound to transfr:r or allocate back to their parent unit. The said aspect wzrs already considered by the respondents. The word 'deputation'cannot be treated as 'deputation'but it has to be treated as 'transfer' for all practical purposes. In view allocation of staff, wherein the persons who have permitted to serve 'as-is-where-is' basis and also in view of directions of 'One-Man Committee' as on the date of the bifurcation i.e onO2.O6.2Ol4 the employees who were working as such are deemed to have been allocated to the State Corporation. The Honble Supreme Court also clarified that in case, any clarification or further direction is required by any of the parties, ttrey are entitled to approach the Court by filing interlocutory application in the said proceedings.

43. In vie:w of the Judgment of the Hon'lcle Apex Court that the allocation made by One-Man"Committee in its report was \ \ Page32 of32 PSKJANNR.J wp 18973&19988_2021 r) not challenged by any of the employee or officer is tenable, as such this Bench is of the opinion that the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.49B1 of 2O2l dated 03.02.2022 and W.P.No.3 i856 of 2021, dated

18.01.2022 have to be followed and the"petitioners are at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for their grievance.

44. With the above observations, these two Writ Petitions arel disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if &fly, pending shall stand closed. To, P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ANT REGI /,TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Corporation Ltd irector, T Hyderabad 2. The chairman and Managing. Director, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation and Managing D , Vidyuth Soudha 6|rdr"t6" ttolilvrin 56ro"r'i, 3rd Frbor, Gunadala Vijayawada State Power Generation

3. The Chief Engineer, Electrical Operation and Maintenance Srisailam Dam (West)

4. The Director (HR), Telangana state Power Generation corporation Ltd' 5 The Chief ' General Mar1ag91 (.S anq. EBP.)r. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corpora?oi'i-til]Vioyrin souona, sio'Floo', Gunadala Vijayawada Accounts (Res), Telangana Soudha

6. The Finaneial Advisor and Cnid Cg1ltgttg qf Siate' Cowei Oeneration Corporation Ltd' Vidyuth ,

7. One CC to SMT GODA RAMALAKSHIVII, Advocate. [oPUC] B.oneCCtoMs.K.UDAYASREE'SCFoRTSPGC.IoPUC] 9. One CC to SRI M;VIDYASAGAR, SC FOR APPGCL' [OPUC] 10. one CC to SRI P.GOVIND REDDY, GP for AP. [OPUCI 1 1 . One CC to SRI G-VIDYASAGAR, Advocate' [OPUCI 12.TwoCDCoPies. :ri-I, . , A . .;r .t, ...i ....i :..."'. . -'.-.__._..-.:,- . !: ..iiiff l HIGH COURT DATED:3111212025 t, o * THE S 2 7 tEB ?A?fr J leHr'0 COMMON ORDER WP.No.1l8973 & 19988 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS .( P..)'u \b'