G.Srinivas v. 1. T.S.TRANSCO Ltd

G.Srinivas, S/o. G.Venkati, Aged about 44 years, working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Nahdipet TSNpDeL, Nizamabad District. 2 T.S.TRANSCO Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Soudha, Hyderabad. Managing Director, Vidyut J 4 5 The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Bhavan, Nak(alagltta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The Chairman and Managing Director, TSNPDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. T.he Chief General Manager (HRD), TSNPDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkatagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

6. Sri A.Rajesham, Assistant Divisional TSNPDCL, Adilabad. Engineer (Construction)/ Adilabad, 7- N.Annapurna, Assistant Divisional Hyderabad. Engineer, TSPCCL, Vidyut Soudha, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08.06.2017 passed in WPMP No. 225'19 of 2017 in WP No. 18450 of 2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition with costs in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O17(WMP. NO: 3967 oF 20171 Between: 4 N.Annapurna, Assistant Hyderabad. Divisional Engineer, TSPC: L, Vidyut Soudha, ...PETITIONER AND 1 G.Srinivas, S/o. G.Venkati, Aged about 44 years, \r rrking as Assistant Divisronal Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Nandipet TS NpDe L, Nizamabad District.

2. T.S.TRANSCO Ltd., rep Soudha, Hyderabad. by its Chairman and Manag ng Director, Vidyut 3 4 5 The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telange ra Chairman ald fVlanaging Director, Vidyut Bha,an, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The Chairman and Managing Director, TSNPDO , Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, War-ngal. Ltd., rep. by its Nakkalagutta, The Chief General Manager (HRD), TSNPDCL, Vidyut tlt avan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

6. Sri A.Rajesham, Assislant Divisional TSNPDCL, Adilabad. Engineer (Con ;truction)/ Adilabad, Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the () -cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou 1 may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.p.M. ,.No.22519 of 2O1t in W.P.No.18450 ot 2O17. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 9 OF 2018 Between:

1. T.S.T_RANSCO Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Manag ng Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Northern Power Distribution company of reranoz ra Ltd., rep. bv rts Chairman and lVtanaging Director, Vidyut Bhl an, Nakk;lagirtta, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

3. The Chairman anq N/ana.ging Djrector, TSNPDO , Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

4. The Chief General Manager (HRD), TSNPDCL, Vidyut Eil avan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. AND 1 G..Srinivas, S/o. G.Venkati, A-ged about 44 years, \v rrking as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Nandipet fS lpO"Ct_, trtizil;L;J District. ...PETITIONERS s 2

91..4.Rgj".-hqm, Assistant Divisional Engineer (Construction)/ Adilabad, TSNPDCL, Adilabad.

3. N.Annapurna, Assistant Divisional Hyderabad. Engineer, TSPCCL, Vidyut Soudha, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orders dated 0g.06.2017 passed in w.p.M.p.No . 22519 0f 2017 in W.P No. 't8450 of 2017 and/dismiss the writ petition. lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Between: 1 Gajula Venkataramana, S/o.Narasaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ Assistant Divisionat Engineer, TSNpDCL nyo--H.ruo.7li_riSS, Mlnrirffi;;I;, Karimnagar, Telangana Bodika Saraiah, S/o Bodika JVysq?h, Aged about 54 years, Occ Assistant Divisionat Engineer, TSNpDCI, ruo H.rio2-1-liii, d*"i..i c,ironv,-noli No-50@ Rajeev Park, Hanamkonda, nanamiondi iutrngunr. 2 ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 ?. 4 5 as Assistant L, Nizamabad G.Srinivas, S/o. G.Venkati, Aged aboul 44 years, working Divis.ionat Engineer, Operation Sub Division, NriJip"i fSrupOC District. T S.TRANSCO Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. The Northern Power Distributior Company_ of Telangana Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Manaoing oirectorl - - Eilirrn, Nrr,i }rgttti, Hanamkonda, Warangal. " The Chairman and Mana-ging Director, TSNPDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Waringal. The chief General Manaoer (HRD), TSNPDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkaragutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal." Vioyri

6. Sri A.Rajesham, Assistant Divisional TSNPDCL. Adilabad Engineer (Construction)/ Adilabad,

7. N.Annapurna, Assistant Divisional Hyderabad. Engineer, TSSPDCL, Vidyut Soudha, Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou,t may be pleased to ...RESPONDENTS 4 vacate the interim order dt.08.06.2012 passed in W.p.lVp W.P.No.18450 of 2O1l and related rejection letter dated: 22 the above Writ petition with costs in the interest of Justice. IA NO: 30F 2025 1o.22519 of 2O1t in )4.2017 and dismiss Between: 1

3. AND J[3',[?Xn"T,5"-fii"fl:ilt,tioL-lgmoanv. or reranlri na Ltd.., re,. by its Hanam[onaa]'vitroil;"[''ng urrector, Vidvut Bha,an, Irirk"6lr;ltd I:i*,33i[T,il,":[X"#::iflJ3nnl,,.o"'o. rsNpDo, Vidyut Bhavan, IH,"Jl""t"3::'i,r3lile:i n",. ( H RD), Ts N PDC L, vid vut Ei r a va n, Na kka ras u*a, ...PETITIONERS

1. G. Srinivas, District. 2 Sri A.Ra s Assistant Divisional E,.31:"": 5?:T3[i;,.fff8 ,193#".fi,ffit& ,ll ISBB.: Nizama bad TSNPDCl:t#[brt.t,.tant Divisionat Engineer (Consruction)/ Adilabad, ' il#:istJJ"a' Assistant Divisional Ensineer, TSpc(;t , vidyut soudha, - 3n:1?11?'bi1?3i'tBsil*?1'*t,.Jr"3l: ' workins as Asst )ivisionar Ensineer' 5 J.Purushotham, aoe( en g i ne;r/opiiat io n]V'u'iru n Jr1 rJN"Ffa L #:ll#3, o?..,,,,o.., D ivisio na r ' [:?,,,:js*[Tf*!i:1tii: f{?u}33..',*",n?,1*x:?:{ 35,,- ,ffi;.o*?.,flT,,frlltl t f;it'[a:[i*1[;E!,i isflifl#','Bt:ff*?;?j. d; i:'d 3ji"i:.ll:?] I;t;J,ff[i3"%Ht rep. bv its chairman and Manasin; Director, Vidyut (Not necessary party respondent No.g) Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the cir() mstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court rr ry be preased to ..RESPONDENTS x I --- vacate the interim order passed in WPMP No. 22519 of 2017 in WP No. 18450 of 2017 dt.08-06-2017 and dismiss this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI CH.VIDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SMT K,UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI K.RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.9 & 10: SRI S.SURENDER R.AO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA The Court made the following: ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELrt TGANA AT ITYDERABAI) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAI AI(A WRIT PETITION No. 1845() OF 2O17 o4.L2.2025 BetweeE: G. Srinivas And .. Pet 1 ()ner T.S. TRANSCO Ltd. Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director And hve others. ORDER: Rcs; rndcnts Petitioner was apt:c.inteC as Tr :ti,- t .t AssistanI Engineer (Electric.rl) in APGENCO on 05-O9-2OO0. \PIRANSCO issued TOO Ms. No. 35 dalerl l:l-O5-2OO5 allou'i'r 1 absorption on transfer betwer:n companies; .,r; rtl A[,G ENCO ac r ptecl this lrv Memo dated 30-06-2005. When peritioner sought z bsorption in APNPDCL (now TSNPDCL); AP{}ENCO requeste,l APNPDCL's concurrence uio letter datecl 09-12-2005, leading t, G.O.O. No. 364 dated |9-12-2OOS for mutual absorption of s x AEs each. Petitioner was relieved uia memo dated 05-01-2Or) r and joincd APNPDCL on 0|-02-2006, later promoted , j Assistant r .l Divisional Engineer, ful1y eligible for Divisional Engineer promotion.

1.1. Regulation 25(f) of APSEB Scrvice Regulations Part-ll states mutual transferees shall forego seniority based on hrst appointment and take last rank among probationers in transferee unit. Petitioner, having completed probation on 11-06-2003, requested inclusion beiow approved probationers by representation dated 04-02-2006 but received no reply' It is stated, by Memo dated 04 O1 2OO8, provisional seniority list of Assistant trngin*rs was issued placing contract appointees lrgured at St.Nos. 3 to 72 above the petitioner contrary to regulations. Petitioner objected to the same on 23-04-2008 but the said objections were rcjectcd by memo dated O8-O5-2OO9' Thereaftcr, final seniority I ist ll'as issued showing petitioner at Sl.No. 112; without communicaling the said seniority list' 45 AEs were piomoted as Assistant Divisional Engineers via NOO dated 11-05-2OO9. Claiming the said order illegal, Writ Petition No. 10340 of 2010 was hlecl. According to petitioner, when one Sri D' I -2. Mallesham, who '*'as tran sferred as approved probationer on 22-06-2ClC,5 and placed belo'r' probationary AEs', made reflresentation tfrough SC & ST Rights Protection Society, ) APIRANSCO clarified by letter dated 28-08-20I ) to follow Regulation 25(0(b[i)&(ir) and earlier memos ,r senioritl hxation. Despite this, petitioner's seniority 'r,as not rer.ised whereas Mallesham was promoted in Septt r rber 2OO9. Subsequently also, APTRANSCO by memo <late< 16-04-20l l stated transferred employec seniority shall be r r nnted from joining [ransferee company only. Petitioner l.ed further representations; APIRANSCO's letter dated OII-02-'2O12 reaffirmed seniority per TOO Ms. No. 35 datec t 3 0S-2OOS excluding subsequent clarifications. Petitioner's i7 Al-2O12 representation remains unconsidered.

1.3. Petitioner states that peers appointt r u.ith him in APGENCO rr ere promoted as Additional Divisror Lr I Engineers and considered for promotion as Divisional Engint t -s, l;ut he is denied seniority benefits by the 2"d responde r pr:titioner therefore, hled Writ Petition No. 22482 of )) 2 claiming seniorit5r below approved probationers and the sait. ,Vrir perition pending. While so, the 3rd respondent communir rted revised integrated provisional seniority list dated 3 I -05-2( 0 lor which, he submitted objections on 31 05 2OlO and ,23,O., 2Ol7. Again objections were rejected by memo d,ated, 24-O4-2,J i7 ztncl final seniority list placed him at Sl.No. 52 reckoninp jornins date -l as O 1-02-2006 rather than initial APGENCO appointment' below Respondents 5 and 6 at SI Nos' 15 and 16' The impugned memo daied 27 .O4.2U'7 and the memo dated 24'04'2017 suffer fiom non-application of mind and exceed authority by deviating from Regulations uio clarifications' thus illegal' contends petitioner Accordtng to petitioner' it is settled law that there is t.4. no po\^,er vested in the official rcspondents to alter the purport and content of the Regulations by way of clarihcationslt is stated, basing on the said scnioriry' respondents are taking steps to effecl promotions to the post of Divisional Engineer as is evident from the contents of the Memo dated 09'O5'2O17 wherein Annual Appraisal rePorts rvere called for' Hence' the Writ Petitlon This Court while issuing rute nisi' on 08'06'2O17' 2. granted interlm suspension of operation of the seniority Iist of Assistant Engineers communicated vie Memo d'ated 27 'O4 '2017 ofthe3.drespondentinsofarasplacingpetitioner,snameat Sl.No. 52 instead of shorving his name above that of 5 and 6 and the related rejectron memo dated Respondents

24.04.2017. Respondents 1 to 4 have put-fon,ard telr case as follon s Following the unbundling of APSEB arr creation of DISCOMs, employee transfers betvvecn companies ,r :re hcld up, but APTRANSCO issued orders uide TOO (Addl. Si cy ])61) \,rtc. No. 35 dated 13-05-2005 permitting absorptiorr rranslcr of employees with the condition [hat transferred emp[ \.ecs accept Iast rank in the seniority of the transferee comp: r 1' based on their appointment date in the neu. company. This u I s reinlorced by N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms. No. 239 dated 25-Ol-OO6, u,hich mandates employees to forfeit seniorify in t r :ir original company and accept las[ rank in the new compan]. It is stated, certain Assistant Engineers (AEs) of APGENC a , including petitioner, were transferred mutually between Al, }DNCO ancl APNPDCL (now TSNPDCL) under these orclcr s The AEs absorbed in APGENCO were placed below emerr3 nc1 / trainee AEs as per G,O.O. 364 dated 19-12-2OOS, confirnr <l by letters daLed 21-12-2005 and Memo dated 24-t2-2OOl , prcscribing placement below AEs. with ts,o years' se r ,,ice under regularization. Petitioner joined on 0\-02-2006 FN: )v that time, the 5e respondent had already converted as AII zrncl the 6d, i respondent's service ivas regularized from O 1 , I O-2O 14 _ --'2 ^;xd$&: .. ;::,s:;. -, -,:''--, o At the petitioner's joining date, some 2003 contract

3. 1 . AEs. had completed two years ancl were regolariznd (effective from O 1-03-2006). Under transfer conditions' petiLioner's sbniority was to 1ie below these 2o03-recruited AEs' but above 20O4 transfer-appointed AEs' as per BP Ms No' 354 dated l2-12-1gg4. His seniority was hxed accordingly and communicated uio Memo dated O4-01-2OO8 Upon petitioner's objections, after examination and hnding no valid grounds' rejection was communicated lhlough Memo dated 08-05-20 1 1' r.ith the seniority list dated O4-01-2008 firialized on O8-O5-2011 placing petitioner at Si. No l 11 below 2004 transfer AEs' This Court in Writ Appeal No 1104 of 2Oll and batch' by -iudgment dated 17-09-2O13, helcl that seniority must be reckoned from the date of regularization' Pursuant to this' 08-05-2009 and respondents revised the seniority tist .dated issued a reVised integrated provisional seniority list on 13-02- 2017, fulirtg the petitioner at Sl' No 53 belorv regular AEs' but above contract AEs. existing at his joining Though as per transfer conditions, his seniority should have been below the 2OO3directrecruitmentbatch,rtwasfixedabovethemfollowing the High Court order. it is further stated, petitioner's further objections to 3.2. th? prtovisional list were fouod baseless and rejected uia Memo 1 ) dated 24-04-2017; the final seniority list issued orr 27-O4 2017 fixed him at Sl. No. 52. Regulation 25(f) of APSEI] SRs Part-I[, dealing with transfers of probationers ar( approved probationers, is cited with sub-regulations (a) and ( r) explaining transfers are liable when administrative necessitrc s exist, and consent for mutual transfers presumptively gii r n rvith thc condition that involved employees forego their prei'i, us seniorilr and take last rank in the new unit as of joining late. This Regulation appiies only for transfers within the orgl rizalion, not from/to outside organizations. Notes (iii) and (iv) c I Regulation 1O(h) of APSEB Service Reguiations Part-III c1e r 11,'scniorit-v fixation lor transfers on administrative ground s or a[ oum request, hxing seniority in the latter unit relative o respective appointment dates. Regulation 7 of APSEB SRs Part-[l prescribes that where a provision conflicts wit r a special regulation in Part-lII, the latter prevails.

3.3. Due to unbundling and DISCOII{ formation, applicability is restricted to respective DISCOM _; rrisdictions. Transfers between companies are termed absoqr ions, where seniority reckons from joining date in the transfcr ee company only. APTRANSCO'S TOO 35, dated 13-05-204 i, confirms incumbents must accept last rank in senio': ,Y f-r-xed in transferee company relative to their appoir t rent date. Regarding Sri D. Mallesham, AE, APIRANSCO'S Letter dated 28-O8-2OO9 states provisions in Regulation 25(f)(b)(i)&(ii) and earlier clarihcations (Memos Dt. 11-11-1991, 17-05-1994) may be fotlowed in seniority hxation. Nonetheless, Memo dated 16-04-2011 clarifies seniority of employees transferred under TOO 35, Dt. 13-05-2005 shalt be fixed as per appointment date in the transferee compan,v regardless of earlier status, supcrsediirg earlier memos. Similar clarihcation for APNPDCL rvas issued by Memo dated 26-A7 -2O I 1 . Since petitioner's seniority fixed thus, no deviation in rules/ guidelines exists'

3.4 . Without requisition from respondents, CGM (HRD&Trg) APTRANSCO in Lr.No. 2a112 dated O8-O2-20I2 sent Legal Advisor's opinion advising petitioner be placed as per TOO 35 regardless of subsequent clarifications, which apply prospectively from 16-04-20 i l. 'fOO 35 mandates forfeiture of previous seniority ald acceptance of last rank in the transferee company with seniority reckoned from joining date' The Legal Advisor's opinion cannot override the TOO 35 guidelines When Sri D. Mallesham's case was revisited, CGM(HRD)/Transco's Letter dated 18-09-2014 directed action as per TOO 35 and the 16-04-20ll clarihcation for hxation of seniority on permanent absorption. Petitioner's case is distinguished as he joined rcspondents' company in May- 2006 and Sri D. Mallesham 7 i 9 having joinecl in .June 2O05. Between these date:; some Sub- Engineers were promoted as AEs. by transfer an< some AAEs. converted to AEs. The Frnal seniority list datec ()8-05-2OO9 placed Sri D. Mallesham belou, existing regular \Es. as per transfer conditions, while pctitioner's senioriry was fixed belorr contract AEs. from 20O3 w,hose regularization was rnderway at joining, as per transfer conditions. Pursuant rc High Court directions of 17-O9 20 13, 08-05-20O9 list was r( \ sed placing petitioner above 2003 recruitment batch.

3.5. Respondents deny failure to inform re titioner of seniority conditions; lctters dated 2I-12-2OO5 anrl Memo dated 24-12-2005 which clearly informed CGM(ADM)71 PGtrNCO of placement of transferred incumbents below AEs. u i [r tu-o years' service undergoing regularization. Neither resl), ndents nor AP|RANSCO/ APGENCO indicated petitioner's ser ioriiv would be below zrpproved probationers; petitioner rrl sinterpreted regulations for undue advantage. Assistant Engin: .rs absorbed into APGENCO vide G.O.O No. 364 dated 19-. I 2005 v".ere placed below emergency/ trainee AEs. Petitiorl r demands placement below approved probationers contriur to existing guidelines. Promotions fronl Assistant Enginee - to Assistant Divisional Errgineer since May 2OO9 are subject to t.view as per revised seniorit_v dated. 27-04-2017 under juclment dated l0 17 09-2013 in Writ Appeal No. 1 104 of 201 1 and batch Horvever, interim suspension order dated 08-O6-2O17 halted operationoftheseniorirylistinsofaraspiacingpetitioneratSl and 6 with related No. 52 instead o[ above ResPondents 5 is reiterated that dated' 24-O4-2Ol7 It rcjection Memo petitioner's seniority reckons from joining date 0 1-02-2006 in TSNPDCL, transferred from APGENCO' pursuant to TOO 35 (13-O5 2OO5). Respondents t.herefore' pray for dismissal of Writ Petitton. ln the counter' the 5h respondent aimost sated in 4. linc with the case of Respondents 1 to 4' It is stated' interim stay of seniority ltst since Oa-O6-2O17 prevents regular promolion despite vacancies and prays to vacate interim order' It is also stated, Regulation 25(f)(6)(i) of Part II cited by petitioner does not aPPlY, as he is not a born emPloYee of but transferred from APGENCO; hence in Part III govern' Citing the Supreme precedent in K'P' SudhakrrroLn a' Stdte oJ Keralal ' the 6th rcspondent explains that senioriry is retained when transfer is is at by aclministrative order but forfcited when transfer emploYee's request, placing employee at junior-most rank in supports respondents' position that rcgulations respondent Court's t].re 2"d special new cadre, which '(2006) 5 SCC 186 ,.- 1 pelitioner's previous APGENCO seniority does n rt count in TSNPDCL.

5. Respondents 7 and 8 state that the 7L respondent was appointed as Assistant Engineer on contract I Lsis through direct recruitment on 01.10.2OO'2 and became regu ar Assistalt Engineer on Ol.l2.2OO4, while the 8th re sl) ,ndent was appointed on contract basis on O 1 .05.2002 an :J regularized through NOO (CGM HRD) Ms.No. 163, dated 26. r,.2OO4; borh were promoted as Assistant Dir.isional Engineers cr 1 1.05.2009 and have been u,orking as such in the 2"d responc€ :tt companv. Petitioner, initiallv appointecl as Assistant Engince ' in 2001 in A.P. GENCO, came on mutual transfer to the 2,, respondent company at his request on '24.12.2OO5 and joincrl as Assistant Executive Engineer on 01.12.2006. His request fo- transfer w,as processed pursuant to TOO No. 35 dated 13.5.21)5, u,ith the petitioner undertaking to take last rank amon I thc regllar employees in the 2nd respondent company an<l : forego his previous service in APGENCO, as the transfer was i t his request under APSEB Service Regulation No. 1O Note 4 oi Parr III. Part III Regulations are special Regulations ald prelr,i ovr:r Part II general Regulations in casr: of conflict as per I?,:.ulation 7 of Part II. As per Regulation 10 Note 4, an employee t.ansferred at his own request from onc trriir to another slt rll har.e his 1) seniority fi-xed in the latter unit with reference to the date of his first appointment therein. Hence, the writ petitioner's seniority in the 2nd respondent company is reckoned from his joining clateo[ol.o2.2C,06,whereasRespondentsTand8wereregular employees effective from Ol 12'2OO4 and 01'10'2OO4' respectively. The hnal integrated seniority list published on 27.O4.2OO7 placed the 7h respondent at Sl'No' 17' the Sft rt:spondent at S1.No. 19 and petitioner at Sl'No 52' Petitioner's objections u'ere rejected by the 2nd respondent company' promptins the petitioner to file the present writ petition claiming sr:nioritl.overtheserespotldents.Consequently,theyfiled Applications seeking impleadment as Respondents 7 and 8' It is stated, nurn erolls vacant Divisional Engineer 5 1 . posts exist, and due to the i tcrim stay granted by this Court' aithough Ilcsponcicnts 7,8 and other seniors are entitled' they are being denied regular promotions' The 7e resPondent challer-rges petitioner's grleva[ce that he is entitled to count seniori[' as per Regulation 25(f)(6)(i) of Part II of the APSEB Service Regulations, stating this Regulation does not apply to thefactssincepetitioneriSnotabornemployeeofthe2nd rcspondent company. Where seniority disputes involve emplo-ver:s transferred within the respondent company, the said l, 1 regulation applies; however, petitioner was transfer r :d from A.P. GENCO to AP NPDCL at his request, hence gov r ned by the special provision in Service Regr-rlation No. 10 Nott I of Part III, which requires seniority fixation from date of jo ring in the latter department. Part III Regularions prevail or r r Part II in conflicts as per Regulation No. 7 of Part III. Henc: petitioner's request was rightly rejectcd under the Service R r plations as well as TOO No. 35 dated 13.05.-2OO5, specificall. Clause 5(c), which addresses absorption ol employees sub- r rt to them accepting last rank in the scni,-rrrty hxed for thcrr category or grade in the transferee compally relative to t1 eir date of appointment therein. The 2tt(L respondenl, aft - examining petitioner's objections, issued Mcnro dated 24.O4.2.i t 7 providing elaborate reasons justifying this clecision, which < r not call for interference by thrs Court.

5.2. These respondents rcly on the Hon'l le Supreme Court's ruling in K.P. Sudhaka.ro.n's ccse c()r lrrming the principle that a government sen,ant transferred o the same post and cadre by administrative order retains :;r niority from date of transfer, while transfer orr the employee': rwn rcquest results in forfeiture of prior seniority, placing thc employee at the bottom of the seniority list in the new cadre. ' he Supreme t4 Court upheld this in relatiot-t to revised seniority lists dated 13.11.1990 and 22.09.1997, and' seniority of transferred LDCs counted only fiom the date of joining the new district disregarding prior service. It is asserted that this judgment has been consistently followed, hence petitioner is not entitled to count previous seniority from the A' P' GENCO unit in TS NPDCL. T'hc additional repiy afhdavit ltled by petitioner 6. states that one D. Mallesham and others filed Writ Petitions Nos. 17492 of 2017, 12697 ot 2006, and 2a86O of 2Ol4 challenging the lcgality and arbitrariness of the memo dated 08.05.2009 which deleted the specihc condition placing petitioner aftcr approved probationers in seniority' The Court' by its common ordcr dated Otr' 1O'2O18, set aside tJle said memo and directed respondents to pass fresh orders for including petitioner appropriately in the seniority list and for consideration for uext higher posts, permitting him to Frle a representation for such purposc' Pursuant to the said order' thel.tresponden|issuedthememodatedlo.ll.202lrestoring the words "after approved probationers' in the seniority memo dated 08,05.2009, thereby cancelling the memo dated 09.06.2005, and revised D. Mallesham's seniority in the 7 1 Assistant Engineer cadre, placing him betr'veen scri rl numbers 14 and 15 in the revised integrated seniont'' list dated 27.O4.2O17, with an assurance that promotions t I Djvisional Engineer shatl follow seniority rank' The memo st:rl( s the orders oi this court were scrupulously followed and fully ir plementcd'

6.1. After fixing senioriS'of Sri Malteshanr who joined APNPDCLfTomAPTRA.NSCOon22'062OO5'peti'i)ner'having joined on 01.02.2006, ought to havc been p aced belou' Mallesham and afte r the approvecl probationcrs' 1r I t'ea<l' he was placed belou' Assistant Enginet'rs u'ho ra'ere I on-approved probationers at his joining but complet''' probation subsequently. While other Disiribution Comparr :s uniformly followAPTRANSCoinstructionsandRegulatitIs,APNPDCL adopted a different approach in his case' resultiil 1 in denial of his career prospects. Other Assistant Engineers 'r rpointed lvith petitioner in APGENCO have been promotc(i rs Additional Divisional Engineers earlier ancl are now unde - c:on sideration for Divisional Engineer posts, u'hereas he is di; dvantaged by discriminatory senioritY hxin g-

6.2. Petitioner cites the 3'd rcspondct-r '; Memo dated l3.O2.2OlT,whereinarevisediutegratedpror':rlnzrlsenioriry list of Assislant Engineers (Elec'; as on 31 C5 '( 10 placed him --l at Sl. No.52. Thereafter, h<l"vever, foliowing the interim order and TOO No.35 dated 13.05.2005, his rightful place should have been at S1. No. i5 irl the final integrated provisional senioriry- list communicate<l on 27 -O4'2O17 ' Though he submitted reprcsentation dated 23.O7'2017, 3'd respondent rejected them through Memo dated 24.04.2017 and issued the hnal seniority list placing hirn at 51' No 52, reckoning date of .joining in APNPDCL as 01 01l.llrJ06, not considering his initial APGENCO appointrnenI ciatc of 05'09'2000' Petitioner maintains that this seniority list is liable for review and revision pending outcomc ol sever:ll writ petitions including WP Nos' 2673012015, 4033812015. and others, with earlier WP Nos' 10340/2010 and 2248212012 on seniority also pending before the Honble Court. Based on th.c aforemcntioned senioritSr lists, petitioner

6.3. apprehends that promotions to Divisional Engineer posts are being processed through annuai appraisal reports; however' due to unsettled seniorilr'. official rcspondents may promote those unjustihably placed above him, affecting his career prospects irreparably.

7. Hearcl Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Ch Vic[1:l Sagar, learned Senior Counsel I iiIl I r.) on behalf of Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standinc Counsel for the Corporation and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, l,r .rned Senior Cousnel on behalf of Sri K. Ramamohan, learned r r rrnsel for the Respondents 6 to 8 and Sri S, Surender Rao, l.'rrned Senior Counsel on behalf of Respondents 9 and I0. ln s rpport of his case, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the jrr, gment of the Honble Supreme Court in ItI/s Kesho Ram and C'< . u. Union of India2. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthl', learned Senior ( ounscl relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supremc Courr in Secretdry to Gouenunent, DeparAment of Health & Fannll 1 Welfare o. K.C. Devaki3 and. Geetha V.M. a. Rethnosenan I .a

8. Having perused the material on rc(:( r 1 and having heard learned counsel on either side, it is to br: s:en that Writ Petition is liable to be dismisserl for, f-ixarion ,!' petitioner's seniority has been carried out strictly in accor<l Lncc \r,ith the statutory provisions and serv'ice Regulatiorrs rpphcable to transfers and absorptions v,ithin the eit:r r -rcit,r' sector. Specifically, TOO (Addl. Secy. Per) Ms. No. 35 cla,r ci 1.1-05-2OO5 and Regulation 10 Note 4 of Part-III, clear'l'i provide that employees transferred on their o$.n request to ar r ther- company must accept the last rank in seniority reckoned lr )m t he date of '(1989) 3 scc l5l '2025 SCC Onlinc SC 239 ' atn zo2s sc sz+ t8 joining the transferee company. Part III Regulations are special Regulations and Part II Regulations are general. As per Regnlation 7 of Part II, if an1' provision in these Regulations is recognized to a provision in the Special Regulation applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the latter shall in respect of that service, prevail over the position in the Regulation in this part. In the instant cast , petitioner came on request to 9. the 2"d respondent company or 31 .O2.2006 and joined in the post of Assistant Engineer, v.'h<;reas Respondents 7 and 8 were admittedll, regular employees rvith effect from O1.12.2004 arld

01.10.2004 respectively, hence, their seniority was fixed at Sl.Nos. 17 artd 19 and petitioner's u'as at Sl.No. 52. Though petitioner rely on Regulation 25(fl(6)(i) of Part II of the Service Regulation, the same has no application as petitioner is not a born employee of the 2"d respcndent Company. Since he was transferred, Service Regulation No. 10 Note 4 of Part III wouid govern the fieid. This principle has been consistently upheld by judicial precedents including the common judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1104 of 2O11 dated 17-O9-2013 and the Hon'lcle Supreme Court ruiing rn K.P. Sudhakara,n's case. 7 i9

10. The Honble Supreme Court in K'P. Su'i hakarrrn's corse, held as under " In service jurisprudence, the general rule rs government servant holding a particular post is transferrei I post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out Ii service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of s t post before his transfer has to be taken into consideration lo the seniority in the transferred post. But where a governmer so transferred on his or.r'n request, the transferred emplo-'-er forego his seniority till the date of transfer ald will be 11 bottom below the junior-most emplovee in the category in t r' because a governmen[ ser , or department. This is transferred to another unit ()r department fcr l'i: considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the sen c employees in the department to llhich he is transferred, b1'' l his service in the department frorn r.vhrch he has been should be taken into account. This is also because a persol to a particutar post in a cadre, should knorv the strenglh ( and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list 1 the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb sur 1 ntlr:r The matter is, however, governed by the relevant ".-i.g 1 1. lhat if a ) the same , len€lth of lice in the computing senrant is iill hiive to ccd at the ;rcu cadre nt getting personal -rt] o[ the Limirrg that ransierred, appointed th€ cadre repared for prospects. In view of the same, this Court is ol the r pinion thzrt petitioner's request was rightly rejected not onl\ as per the Service Regulations mentioned above but also as pt -'l-O.O.No. 35, dated 13.O5.2OO5, by the order passed in \ emo dated

24.04.2017 with elaborate reason which does not :a1l lbr anv interference. t2. For the reasons stated supra, the Wri Petition rs dismissed. No costs l0

13. Consequentiy all ihe miscellaneous applications if any are closed. I //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRI ASSISTANTRPS SHNA TRAR SECTION OFFICE R To,

1. One CC to SRI D.LINGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCC to SMT K.UDAYA SRl, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI K.RAMAMOHAN' Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI S.SURENDER RAO' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies BSR LS k..- HIGH COURT DATED: 0411212025 ORDER WP.No.18450 of 2017 4 - 't )- \ 'i /l a4- f iri; I&t if ')/ ,...,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS s ord"a \(-r'- dd,,