Summary
The Court rejected challenges to the One-Man Committee’s concluding allocation of power-utility personnel between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The earlier consent-based judicial mandate made the allocation binding, with clarification proceedings providing no appeal on the merits. Reciprocity, combined application of the modalities and consequential retirement and hardship adjustments were upheld. Salary and allowance claims remained available before appropriate forums, while the allocation itself could not be reopened.
Issues
- Whether clarification applications could reopen the binding committee allocation or restrict its exercise to the originally relieved employees.
- Whether reciprocal allocations and selection beyond an earlier home-district-based list departed from the modalities.
- Whether retirement exclusions and subsequent hardship adjustments invalidated finality, and whether transferred DISCOM personnel were exempt from allocation.
Provisions considered
- Section 82, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Applied the statutory scheme for distribution of public-sector personnel between successor corporate bodies, implemented through the court-appointed committee after failure of consensus. (¶¶ 5, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31)
Held
- The committee’s decision was final and binding under the earlier Supreme Court order. Liberty to seek clarification or further directions facilitated completion of allocation and did not create a right of appeal or permit re-examination of issues decided by the committee. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- Fresh staffing figures unsupported by material placed before the committee could not be introduced to reopen allocation. The claim that 1,399 employees had been allocated to Telangana against 655 to Andhra Pradesh wrongly added employees who remained in Telangana and employees who had moved there on their own; the reciprocal allocation was 655 each, including the 71 agreed special cases. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 52)
- The home-district modality was not independently decisive. The committee could approve selection using the modalities cumulatively and match personnel with available posts, including employees outside the earlier list of 2,165. Entrusting identification to the Andhra Pradesh subcommittee member, subject to committee approval, was unobjectionable. (¶¶ 44, 45, 46, 47)
- Excluding employees attaining 58 during 2020 was an equitable extension of the agreed protection for retirees. Consequential deletions and spouse or medical adjustments implemented the concluding report and did not render it impermissibly open-ended. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 51)
- Reassignment of the two districts’ distribution business did not finally allocate their personnel. The government order itself contemplated later final allotment, and the contrary argument had already been rejected in the judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 53, 54, 55, 56)
- The completed allocation could not be challenged by an employee, officer or utility before any forum and had to be implemented. Separate salary and allowance claims required no decision in these proceedings and could be pursued before the appropriate forum according to law. (¶¶ 57, 58)
Result
M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291 dismissed; M.A. No. 1287 rejected; other applications disposed of. Binding committee allocation and directions to be implemented, with liberty to pursue separate salary and allowance claims before appropriate forums.