# Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1106
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-10-11
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, A. S. Bopanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/y-sai-satya-prasad-ors-v-d-prabhakara-rao-ors-35360
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Contempt of Court- Reorganization of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh, State of Telangana was formed -Government
orders were issued for Distribution, Generation Companies and
Transmission Corporation whereby their assets and liabilities 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 could not arrive at any consensus with regard
to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel-Power
utilities of Telangana on the principle of nativity unilaterally relieved
employees whose service records mentioned them as resident of any
part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and those who
belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana were
permitted to join- Impugned action set aside by High Court - Order
upheld by Supreme Court, however, noticing that two States were
not able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the
modalities for distributing the personnel between two States, One
Man Committee consisting of a former Judge of the Supreme Court
was appointed - It was made clear that the decision of the One
Man Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties - Present
contempt petition filed by the 84 petitioners-erstwhile employees of
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful
disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed
by Supreme Court- Held: Once the names of the 84 petitioners
figured in the Final List prepared by the One Man Committee and
the Final Report was accepted and approved by Supreme Court
and it was 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by
Supreme Court -The respective subsequent office orders issued by
the respective Telangana Power Utilities i.e.the TS Genco, TS
Transco, the TSNPDCL and the TSSPDCL are contrary to the
directions issued by Supreme Court and the Supplementary Report/
Final Report submitted by the One Man Committee which would
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by
Supreme 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 Supreme Court by filing
respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came to be
dismissed by 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 Supreme Court -It was purposefully directed to constitute the
One Man Committee consisting of a Former Judge of Supreme Court
to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of the
employees and other disputes w.r.t the respective Power Utilities of
both the States -Respective Telangana Power Utilities are guilty of
contemptfor willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment
and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court-Additional
opportunity given to them to comply with the directions issued 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 -This would have a direct bearing on the
punishment/sentence to be imposed- Salary and other service
benefits also to be paid to the petitioners from the day they are
relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited v.
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited
2020 SCC Onl

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 67,987. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
 [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1106
1106
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS.
v.
D. PRABHAKARA RAO & ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) D.No.28852 of 2020)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court- Reorganization of the existing State of
Andhra Pradesh, State of Telangana was formed -Government
orders were issued for Distribution, Generation Companies and
Transmission Corporation whereby their assets and liabilities 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 could not arrive at any consensus with regard
to modalities for allocation and distribution of personnel-Power
utilities of Telangana on the principle of nativity unilaterally relieved
employees whose service records mentioned them as resident of any
part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and those who
belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana were
permitted to join- Impugned action set aside by High Court - Order
upheld by Supreme Court, however, noticing that two States were
not able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the
modalities for distributing the personnel between two States, One
Man Committee consisting of a former Judge of the Supreme Court
was appointed - It was made clear that the decision of the One
Man Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties - Present
contempt petition filed by the 84 petitioners-erstwhile employees of
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities alleging deliberate and willful
disobedience of the judgment and order dated 7.12.2020 passed
by Supreme Court- Held: Once the names of the 84 petitioners
figured in the Final List prepared by the One Man Committee and
the Final Report was accepted and approved by Supreme Court
and it was 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by
Supreme Court -The respective subsequent office orders issued by
the respective Telangana Power Utilities i.e.the TS Genco, TS
Transco, the TSNPDCL and the TSSPDCL are contrary to the
directions issued by Supreme Court and the Supplementary Report/
Final Report submitted by the One Man Committee which would
tantamount to willful disobedience of the directions issued by
Supreme 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 Supreme Court by filing
respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came to be
dismissed by 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 Supreme Court -It was purposefully directed to constitute the
One Man Committee consisting of a Former Judge of Supreme Court
to put an end to the litigation with respect to the allocation of the
employees and other disputes w.r.t the respective Power Utilities of
both the States -Respective Telangana Power Utilities are guilty of
contemptfor willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment
and order dated 7.12.2020 passed by Supreme Court-Additional
opportunity given to them to comply with the directions issued 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 -This would have a direct bearing on the
punishment/sentence to be imposed- Salary and other service
benefits also to be paid to the petitioners from the day they are
relieved by the respective Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities.
Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited v.
Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited
2020 SCC Online SC 995 - referred to.
INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil)
D.No.28852 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2020 in MA No.1270
of 2020 passed by the Supreme Court of India.
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi, Colin Gonsalves, Deepak Nargolkar, Sr.
Advs., Y. Raja Gopala Rao, K. Pramod Kumar, Rohan Sharma, Sandeep
Sudhakar Deshmukh, Sravan Kumar, Olivia Bang, Hitendra Nath Rath,
V. Sridhar Reddy, Abhijit Sengupta,, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ranjit Kumar, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., D. Abhinav Rao, Ms. Seema
Bengani, Rajat Nair, Apoorv Karup, Ms. Meera Patel, Manish Kashyap,
B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Nakul Dewan, Sr. Advs., Puneet Jain, Nishant
Sharma, Deepak Joshi, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advs. for the Intervenor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
Appeal No.11435 of 2018 and other allied Miscellaneous Applications in
the case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Andhra
Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited reported in 2020 SCC
Online SC 995 non-compliance 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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
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 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 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,
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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 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 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 non-compliance 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 11.03.2020, the total
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
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 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
already admitted 30 employees in terms of Supplementary Report dated
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
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 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
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 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
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1115
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 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 (655-71 = 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 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.
It is submitted that One Man Committee vide instructions dated
11.5.2020 directed the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities to send their
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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 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 Sub-Committee Member, Andhra Pradesh may reexamine 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 reexamined 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
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 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 (615-532=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 (655-71) vide the Supplementary Report dated 11.3.2020.
4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction 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 consideration of 71 employees
already allocated, directed the Andhra Pradesh to furnish a list of 584
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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
(655-123=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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
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 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 / 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 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.
Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD & ORS. v. D. PRABHAKARA RAO &
ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
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 self-option, 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 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
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 One-Man Committee. However, this Court did not entertain
the said application. That thereafter, a report title as "Final Report of
One-Man Committee" dated 26.12.2019 was submitted by One-Man
Committee.