TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO) v. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD.

54Copy pinpoint54. The paragraph 2 above also contemplates final allotment. Before the High Court, one of the points framed for consideration was to the following effect:- “4. Whether the division of employees of the TSSPDCL need not be undertaken in view of clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule ?”

55Copy pinpoint55. The above points were categorically answered by the High Court in paragraph 59 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:- “59. The two Districts of Anantapur and Kurnool which were part of APCPDCL before the creation of the State of Telangana have been reassigned to the APSPDCL by clause C(8) of the C Twelfth Schedule. The submission of Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy that in view of the said provision the need for division of the employees between the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL is obviated and the application of Section 82 of the Act has got excluded, is without any merit. Under clause C(8) of the Twelfth Schedule, the division was confined only to the territorial areas of the said two Districts. Neither the assets and liabilities nor the employees have been distributed by the said provision. Evidently, keeping this in mind, the A.P. State Government, before the appointed day, has merely divided the cadre strength between the two DISCOMS by G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29-5-2014 while clearly envisaging therein the final allotment of the employees in future. It has also allowed the employees working in the said two Districts to continue to work in the same places till the final allotment of the employees to the respective DISCOMS is completed. It is therefore imperative that the allocation between the APSPDCL and the TSPDCL is made in the same way as allocation of the employees between the TRANSCOs and GENCOs of the two States is to be made after determining the modalities for such allocation.”

56Copy pinpoint56. The above judgment of the High Court having been upheld by this Court, the submission of learned counsel that no allocation process ought to be undertaken for applicants is without any merit. Further, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that their names were not included in the Final List dated 26.12.2019 also does not in any manner militate against and their names subsequently included for allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State utilities. We having upheld the allocation made by the One-Man Committee from Andhra H

TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION v. A.P. POWER 1029 GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

Pradesh to Telangana State also, we find no merit in M.A. No.1287 of A 2020, which stands rejected.

57Copy pinpoint57. With regard to other M.A.s, 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 finalised by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as the allocation made by the One-Man Committee, no objection or challenge by any employee or officer is entertainable, we clarify 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 M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings and employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.

58Copy pinpoint58. We having found no merit in the objections to One-Man Committee’s Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 it is obligatory for power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.

Ankit Gyan Miscellaneous Applications disposed of. E

F

G

H