/2022 INSC 0898/
  REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) D.No.28852 of 2020
Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors.      …Petitioner(s)
Versus
D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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
Page   1  of   54

Power   Generation   Corporation   Limited   vs.   Andhra
Pradesh   Power   Generation   Corporation   Limited
reported   in   2020   SCC   Online   SC   995   non­compliance
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
Page   2  of   54

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.
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
Page   3  of   54

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
Page   4  of   54

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, 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
Page   5  of   54

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
Page   6  of   54

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
non­compliance 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
Page   7  of   54

11.03.2020,  the   total   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
Page   8  of   54

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
Page   9  of   54

already   admitted   30   employees   in   terms   of
Supplementary   Report   dated   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
Page   10  of   54

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
Page   11  of   54

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
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
Page   12  of   54

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
Page   13  of   54

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
Page   14  of   54

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   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
Page   15  of   54

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
Page   16  of   54

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
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
Page   17  of   54

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   (655­71   =   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
Page   18  of   54

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.
Page   19  of   54

It   is   submitted   that   One   Man   Committee   vide
instructions   dated   11.5.2020   directed   the   Andhra
Pradesh Power Utilities to send their 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
Page   20  of   54

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
Sub­Committee   Member,   Andhra   Pradesh   may   re­
examine   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   re­
examined 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
Page   21  of   54

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   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
Page   22  of   54

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 (615­532=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   (655­71)   vide   the   Supplementary
Report dated 11.3.2020.
4.6. It is submitted that on implementation of the Direction
Page   23  of   54

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
Page   24  of   54

consideration   of   71   employees   already   allocated,
directed   the   Andhra   Pradesh   to   furnish   a   list   of   584
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   (655­123=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
Page   25  of   54

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
Page   26  of   54

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 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
Page   27  of   54

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   /
Page   28  of   54

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
Page   29  of   54

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.
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
Page   30  of   54

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
Page   31  of   54

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 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   self­option,   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
Page   32  of   54

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
Page   33  of   54

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 One­Man Committee. However, this Court
did not entertain the said application. That thereafter,
a report title as “Final Report of One­Man Committee”
dated   26.12.2019   was   submitted   by   One­Man
Committee. Along with the report, a final allocation list
in   the   two   States   corporations/companies   was
prepared   and   annexed.   List   of   655   personnel,   who
were to go from Telangana utilities to Andhra Pradesh
utilities   as   submitted   by   sub­Committee   Members   on
behalf   of   Telangana   utilities   was   approved   by   the
Page   34  of   54

Hon’ble One­Man Committee and was part of the final
list.   That   the   Andhra   Pradesh   utilities   were   aggrieved
by  the final list communicated in the final report filed
Interlocutory Applications. It was the case on behalf of
the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities that the modalities
have   not   been   correctly   implemented   and   the   list
annexed is not in accordance with the modalities. This
Court   disposed   of   the   said   application   with   following
observations:
“This   Court   by   the   final   judgment   having
entrusted   the   work   of   allocation   to   one   man
committee,   as   agreed   by   parties,   the   modalities
finalized by one man committee is binding on all,
to   which,   there   is   no   dissension   between   the
parties.   There   being   no   dispute   regarding
modalities,   in   event,   there   is   some   error   or
mistake in the working of the modalities that can
be   pointed   out   to  the   same   committee   by  means
of   a   representation   and   we   hope   and   trust   that
the   committee   shall   look   into   the   said   grievance
and   correct   the   error,   if   any.   We   also   make   it
clear   that   if   the   representation   is   submitted   by
the applicant, copy of the same shall be given to
the   power   utilities   of   both   the   Sates,   who   may
also   have   liberty   to   submit   a   response   to   those
representation,  which may be considered  by the
one   man   committee.   The   representation   be
submitted   within   two   weeks   and   response
thereto   be   also   submitted   within   two   weeks
thereafter.”
7.5. After   the   order   dated   24.01.2020,   the   One­Man
Committee   after   deliberations   with   all   stakeholders
Page   35  of   54

submitted  a  Supplementary  Report  dated 11.03.2020.
In the  Supplementary   Report, it  was noticed  that   T.S.
power utilities relieved employees numbering total 655
to join A.P. power utilities. It also noted that Telangana
Power   Utilities   are   agreeable   to   accommodate   71
employees   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to   Telangana   State
companies   as   they   are   special   cases   like   of   spouses,
medical   and   handicapped   employees   or   their
dependents.
7.6. In the Supplementary Report, the One­Man Committee
directed that the entire allocation process based on the
allocation   list   with   the   Final   Report   and
Supplementary Report be completed by 30.03.2020. A
clarification   dated   13.03.2020   was   also   issued   by   the
One­Man   Committee.   Aggrieved   by   Supplementary
Report,   the   Telangana   power   utilities   filed
Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2020 with regard
to 584 employees, who were directed to be identified by
Sub­Committee   Members   of   Andhra   Pradesh.   This
Court   disposed   of   the   said   application   observing   that
Page   36  of   54

the objections with regard to 584 employees were to be
considered by One Man Committee.
7.7. One­Man Committee after the order of this Court dated
01.05.2020   issued   a   Concluding   Report   dated
20.06.2020.   In   the   Concluding   Report,   an   allocation
list   submitted   by   Andhra   Pradesh   utilities   was
approved.   The   Committee   noticed   that   655   employees
have   been   allocated   from   Telangana   State   to   Andhra
Pradesh   and   equal   numbers   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Telangana   including   71   names   from   Andhra   Pradesh
to   Telangana,   which   was   held   to   be   of   special   cases
like   spouse   and   medical   cases.   Certain   further
directions   were   given   by   the   One­Man   Committee   in
the Concluding Report in paragraph 29 like approving
the   list   of   Sub­Committee   Members   of   the   Andhra
Pradesh.   In   the   Concluding   Report,   directions   are   to
the following effect:
“ Directions :
I. In addition  to the Directions  contained in Para
21   of   the   Supplementary   Report   of   this
Committee   regarding   retired   employees   on   both
sides,   it   is   further   directed,   that   in   both   the
States,   employees   who   have   attained   or   will   be
Page   37  of   54

attaining   58   Years   of   age   in   the   year   2020   will
be   kept   out   of   the   allocation   process   and   their
names in the Allocation Lists will be removed.
 
II.   In   the   allocation   process   of   the   present
dimension   and   undertaken   after   5   years   delay,
it   is   not   possible   for   the   Committee   to   satisfy
individual   needs   and   comforts   and   service
prospects   of   every   employee.   The   allocation
process   has   been   finalized   on   laid   down
principles contained in the modalities and elbow
room,   wherever   permissible,   in   the   modalities
has been given effect to. The committee however
directs   the   Sub   Committee   member   of   AP   to   re­
examine   any   left   out   spouse   and   medical   cases
and   every   attempt   should   be   made   to
accommodate them in the state of their option.
III. All SC/ST employees cases be reexamined to
accommodate   them   as   per   modality   VIII   in   the
State   where   they   are   notified   as   SCs   or   STs   so
as not to affect their future service growth.
IV. All the employees finally allocated to a Public
Utility   will   be   paid   regular   salary   from   January
2020   and   arrears   of   salary   due   with   other
benefits   attached   to   the   posts.   The   payments   of
salary partly or fully made by the Companies in
the   Two   States   in   the   interim   period   pending
finalization   of   allocation   during   coronavirus
pandemic,   will   be   shared/reimbursed   by   the
companies in the Two States mutually by paying
and   claiming   reimbursement,   if   necessary,   for
the   payments   made   in   the   interim   period.   It   is
made  clear  that  the  entire  burden of  salary and
arrears of salary for each employee would be on
the   Company   to   which   the   employee   is   finally
allocated   and   the   said   Company   will   reimburse
interim payments pending allocation made if any
by  the   Company   to  which   the   employee   has   not
been finally allocated.
V.   All   employees   not   included   in   the   Allocation
Page   38  of   54

List of AP and TS and serving on "order to serve"
basis   in   the   Companies   on   the   formation   of   the
Two   States   in   2014   would   be   deemed   to   have
been   allocated   to   the   Company   where   they   are
presently posted and working. 
VI. Based on the allocation lists, both TS and AP
utilities   will   issue   orders   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
coronavirus pandemic period and the consequent
lockdown imposed.
VII.   All   Employers   of   the   Power   Utilities   in   the
Two   States   will   facilitate   smooth   posting   and
joining   of   employees   in   the   Companies   of   the
Two   States   and   the   Government   and   the   Police
Authorities of Two States will cooperate and also
facilitate   the   movement   of   the   employees
allocated   from   one   Company   in   the   State   to
Company in another Slate. 
VIII.   The   allocation   finally   made   by   this
committee  is  binding on both the employers  and
the employees and any violation thereof and non
implementation   of   said   allocation   be   reported   to
Supreme Court for remedial/Punitive action.”
7.8. After   the   Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020,   a
member   of   the   Sub­Committee   of   Andhra   Pradesh
power   utilities   sent   a   letter   dated   26.06.2020   as
compliance   report.   By   the   said   letter,   119   employees,
who were dropped from the list of incoming employees
from   Telangana   State   power   utilities   to   Andhra
Pradesh   power   utilities   and   further   50   names   were
Page   39  of   54

dropped   of   employees   in   outgoing   list   of   employees
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to   Telangana
State   power   utilities   and   10   further   employees   were
relieved   from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   for   the
reasons mentioned therein.
After   submission  of   the  Concluding  Report  dated
20.06.2020 and follow­up action  taken by the Andhra
Pradesh   Power   utilities,   number   of   miscellaneous
applications have been filed by Telangana State Power
Utilities,   by   several   employees   as   well   as   employees’
associations.   The   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities
Generation Corporation prays for the following reliefs:
“a)   Clarify   that   the   Concluding   Report   dated   20­
06­2020   submitted   by   the   Hon’ble   One­Man
Committee is illegal and arbitrary, being contrary
to   the   Orders   passed   by   this   Hon’ble   court   and
the Final Report  dated  26­12­2019 submitted  by
the Hon’ble One­Man Committee. 
b) Confirm the allocation of 1157 employees  and
242   employees   made   by   the   Hon'ble   One­Man
Committee   as   per   Final   Report   dt.   26­12­2018,
(i.e., the Allocation of 744 (502 +242) to TS Power
Utilities   and   655   from   TS   to   AP   Power   utilities),
as   Final   in   terms   of   the   Order   dt.   28.11.2018
passed in present Civil Appeal. c) Clarify that the
allocation of 4460 and 71 employees (4531) to TS
Power   Utilities   vide   Final   Report   dt.   26.12.2019
and   Supplementary   Report   dt.   11.03.2020,   is
final   and   no   further   allocation   to   TS   Power
Page   40  of   54

Utilities is Permissible. 
d) Clarify that the Supplementary Report in so far
as   Para   No.27,   authorizing   the   Member,   Sub­
committee   of   AP   to   unilaterally   identify   and
allocate   584   employees   to   TS   Power   Utilities   is
contrary   to   the   orders   dated   28­11­2018   in   Civil
Appeal No.11435/2018.
e)   Clarify   the   orders   dated   28­11­2018   in   Civil
Appeal   No.   11435   of   2018   passed   by   this
Hon'bIe Court; and
  f)   Pass   such   other   or   further   order(s)   as   may   be
deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court
in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present
case.”
7.9. Similar prayers were made by other Telangana Power
Utilities.   That   by   a   detailed   order   dated   7.12.2020,
this   Court   dismissed   the   Miscellaneous   Applications
filed   by   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities.   While
dismissing   the   respective   Miscellaneous   Applications
filed   by   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities   which
were   dismissed   after   considering   in   detailed   the   rival
submissions/ objections against the final report dated
20.06.2020,   certain   observations   are   made   by   this
Court,   which   are   very   relevant   while   considering   the
present application, which are as under:
Page   41  of   54

40.     We   may   further   observe   that   the   list   of   655
employees   submitted   by   Telangana   State
power utilities for allocation to Andhra Pradesh
power   utilities   has   been   approved   by   the   One­
Man   Committee   for   which   there   is   no   dispute.
The   One­Man   Committee   has   undertaken
exercise   to   identify   the   list   of   655   employees
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to   be
transferred   to   Telangana   State   power   utilities.
The   proceeding   to   balance   the   number   of
employees from Telangana State power utilities
to   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   being   655,
we   fail   to   understand   that   how   the   applicants
can   raise   the   issue   regarding   number   of
allocable   employees   to   be   considered   by   this
Court in these proceedings.
41. The  submission  which has been much pressed
by the learned counsel for the applicants is that
number   of   employees   allocated   to   Telangana
State power utilities is much more as compared
to   those   which   have   been   allocated   from
Telangana   State   power   utilities   to   Andhra
Pradesh   power   utilities.   The   applicants   have
repeatedly   in   their   application   and   their
objection   before   the   One­Man   Committee   have
referred   to   502   out   of   1157,   242   self­relieved
employees   and   71   spouse   and   medical   cases
plus   584   which   have   been   permitted   to   be
identified   by   Member   of   Andhra   Pradesh   Sub­
Committee.   The   submission   is   that
502+242+71+584   becomes   1399,   hence   1399
have   been   allocated   to   Telangana   State   power
utilities   as   against   655,   which   has   been
allocated   from   Telangana   State   power   utilities
to   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities.   We   may
need   to   look   into   the   above   submission   on   the
basis of each figure claimed by the applicant.
42. Now,   coming   to   figure   502,   which   according   to
the applicant is balance from 1157 by reducing
it by 655. The 502 figure as noted above, 1157
is   the   number   of   persons,   which   were   initially
Page   42  of   54

relieved   by   Telangana   State   power   utilities   to
Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   unilaterally
which decision was set aside by the High Court
and   was   upheld   by   this   Court.   Out   of   1157
only   655   have   been   allocated   to   Andhra
Pradesh   power   utilities,   which   was   approved
by   Final   Report   dated   26.12.2019   of   the   One­
Man   Committee.   How   allocation   of   502   is
claimed   when   they   are   the   employees,   who
remained   on   Telangana   State   without   they
being   allocated   to   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities apart from 655 from Telangana State to
Andhra Pradesh. Further employees working in
Telangana   State   were   allowed   to   remain   in
Telangana   State,   hence,   allocation   from
Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh is only 655
and addition of 502 is wholly inappropriate.
43. Now, we come to number 242, which is number
of   self­relieved   employees   from   Andhra
Pradesh   to   Telangana   State.   Admittedly,   242
employees   are,   thus,   who   got   themselves   self­
relieved   from   Andhra   Pradesh   without   there
being   any   order   or   without   there   being   any
direction   by   anyone.   These   242   employees
were   permitted   joining   by   Telangana   power
utilities   by   its   own.   These   242   employees
having never been allocated to nor being part of
any   allocation   cannot   be   added   in   figure   by
Telangana State. Now, we come to 71, which is
agreed   spouse   and   medical   ground   cases   by
both   the   parties.   71   is   part   of   655,   which   is
now   being   identified   by   Andhra   Pradesh   to   be
allocated   to   Telangana   State.   By   taking   this
no.71   in   Supplementary   Report   permitting
Andhra Pradesh to identify only 584, thus, it is
only   584+71,   i.e.,   655   employees,   which   are
now   being   sought   to   be   allocated   to   the
Telangana   State   by   One   Man   Committee.   We,
thus, do not find any merit in the contention of
the   applicant   that   1399   employees   have   been
allocated   to   Telangana   State   as   against   655
allocated   from   Telangana   State   to   Andhra
Page   43  of   54

Pradesh.
46. The objection that list of 584 is not out of 2165
was   considered   by   the   One­Man   Committee,
which   is   reflected   from   the   Concluding   Report
dated   20.06.2020.   The   above   objection   has
been   duly   considered   and   answered   by   the
One­Man   Committee   in   paragraphs   25,   26,   27
and   28   of   the   Concluding   Report,   which   is   to
the following effect:­
“25.   The   second   submission   on   behalf   of
TS is that with the Supplementary Report,
this   Committee   had   Identified   total   2165
employees   in   the   list   given   to   AP   Sub
Committee   member   for   proposing
allocation   from   that   list.   It   is   urged   on
behalf   of   TS,   that   allocation   list   proposed
by AP is not out of  2165 listed  employees
with   the   Supplementary   Report   of   this
Committee. 
26.   It   is   true,   as   urged   on   behalf   of   TS,
that   with   the   Supplementary   Report,   this
Committee had identified  2165 employees
bused   on   modality   Nos.   5   which   requires
consideration   of   every   employee   for   his
home district and his adjustment as far as
possible   in   the   State   in   which   his   home
district falls.
27.   This   Committee   has   to   be   open   to
correction.   The   Committee   is   also   of   the
view   that   modality   No.   V   alone   is   not
decisive   and   modalities   no.   I   to   IV   are   to
be   cumulatively   taken   into   consideration
and   applied   to   make   allocation   in
proportion   to   the   available   posts   in   each
Company   in   the   Two   States.   TS   side   has
accepted   that   114   employees   from   out   of
584   employees   proposed   for   allocation   by
A.P to T.S are included in 2165 employees
identified   by   this   Committee   in   the   lint
Page   44  of   54

annexed   with   Supplementary   Report.   The
remaining   470   employees   (falling   outside
2165   employees   identified   with   the
supplementary report) have been proposed
by   A.P   for   T.S   in   the   report   of   the   Sub
Committee   Member.   The   justification
shown is that it is to match the number of
employees   with   the   available   posts   in
various companies.
28. In the above circumstances, mentioned
above,   this   Committee   finds   the   Allocation
Lists   company­wise   and   post­wise
proposed   by   AP   deserves   approval   and   it
is so approved.”
48. Now,   one   more   objection   of   the   applicants,
which   needs   to   be   noticed   is   the   objection   that
even   the   Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020
is   not   final   report   and   Sub­Committee   Member
of   Andhra   Pradesh   has   been   authorised   to
modify   the   list.   Applicants   have   referred   to
direction   Nos.   I,   II   and   III   of   the   Concluding
Report, which is to the following effect:­
I. In addition to the Directions  contained in
Para   21   of   the   Supplementary   Report   of
this Committee regarding retired employees
on  both  sides,   it  is  further  directed,  that  in
both   the   States,   employees   who   have
attained   or   will   be   attaining   58   Years   of
age in the year 2020 will be kept out of the
allocation   process   and   their   names   in   the
Allocation Lists will be removed.
II.   In   the   allocation   process   of   the   present
dimension   and   undertaken   after   5   years
delay,   it   is   not   possible   for   the   Committee
to   satisfy   individual   needs   and   comforts
and   service   prospects   of   every   employee.
The   allocation   process   has   been   finalized
on   laid   down   principles   contained   in   the
modalities   and   elbow   room,   wherever
Page   45  of   54

permissible,   in   the   modalities   has   been
given   effect   to.   The   committee   however
directs the Sub Committee member of AP to
re­examine   any   left­out   spouse   and
medical   cases   and   every   attempt   should
be made to accommodate them in the state
of their option.
III.   All   SC/ST   employees   cases   be
reexamined   to   accommodate   them   as   per
modality   VIII   in   the   State   where   they   are
notified   as   SCs   or   STs   so   as   not   to   affect
their future service growth.
49. Now, we first take the direction No.I of the One
Man   Committee   that   those   who   have   attained
or will be attaining 58 Years of age in the year
2020   will   be   kept   out   of   the   allocation   process
and   their   names   in   the   Allocation   Lists   will   be
removed.   In   Supplementary   Report   in
paragraph   21,   the   One­Man   Committee   has
stated:­
“21.   It   was   also   agreed   by   the   Parties   that   all
retired employees between years 2014 to 2020
in each Power Utility in each State need not be
displaced   only   for   pensioner   benefits   payable
to them.” 
50. The   above   indicates   that   both   the   parties   had
agreed   before   the   One­Man   Committee   that   all
retired employees between years 2014 to 2020
in each power utility in each State need not be
displaced.   Thus,   the   above   was   agreement
between   both   the   parties   before   the   One­Man
Committee and direction No.I only an extension
of   the   said   agreement,   i.e.,   whoever   shall   be
attaining 58 years of age in 2020 shall be kept
out   of   allocation   process.   As   per   paragraph   21
of  the  Supplementary  Report,   those,  who  retire
till then were already kept out of the allocation
and the extension till the end of 2020 cannot be
said to be unreasonable. The allocation process
Page   46  of   54

being   not   yet   finalised   and   awaiting
finalisation   for   last   several   years,   those   who
retire   either   in   Telangana   State   or   Andhra
Pradesh   has   rightly   been   decided   not   to   be
displaced   only   for   the   purpose   of   shouldering
pensionary   liability.   The   direction   No.I   is
equitable.
51. The   applicants   further   submit   that   after   the
Concluding   Report   dated   20.06.2020   by   letter
dated   26.06.2020,   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities   have   struck   119   names   from   the
incoming   655   list   from   the   Telangana   State
power   utilities   to   Andhra   Pradesh   power
utilities.   We   are   of   the   view   that   the   said
dropping   is   only   consequential   to   the   decision
of   the   One­Man   Committee   as   reflected   in
paragraph   21   of   Supplementary   Report   and
direction No.I of Concluding Report. The Andhra
Pradesh   power   utilities   have   also   deleted   50
names  from the list  of 584 employees  outgoing
from   Andhra   Pradesh   power   utilities   to
Telangana   State   power   utilities,   which   was
again   in   compliance   of   the   One­Man
Committee’s decision. Any consequential action
taken   in   pursuance   of   the   Concluding   Report
cannot   be   said   to   be   not   contemplated   by   the
final Concluding Report or cannot be said to be
an   open   ended   report.   The   consequence   of
Concluding Report has to be taken to its logical
ends.  Further,   10   employees   have   been  added
by direction Nos. II and the reasons have been
given   in   the   letter   dated   26.06.2020   for
relieving   them,   which   is   again   consequence   of
direction Nos.I and II. We, thus, are of the view
that the One­Man Committee has considered all
materials   and   objections   placed   before   it   by
both   sides   including   the   representation   of   the
employees   and   employees   organisations
submitted from time to time. The process which
was initiated  by submitting  Final Report  dated
26.12.2019   was   supplemented   by
Supplementary   Report   dated   11.03.2020   and
Page   47  of   54

Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020. The One­
Man   Committee   being   aware   of   all   objections
and   having   taken   a   conscious   decision   to
finalise   the   allocation   between   two   States,   we
do not find any such error in the process which
may   warrant   any   clarification   or   direction   by
this   Court.   We   may   further   notice   that   the
exercise   undertaken   by   the   One­Man
Committee   is   to   allocate   655   from   Telangana
State   to   Andhra   Pradesh   and   same   number
from   Andhra   Pradesh   to   Telangana   State.
Apart   from   the   above   two   allocations,   other
personnel,   who   were   working   in   Telangana
State   and   Andhra   Pradesh   were   not   disturbed
by allocation.
52. Learned   counsel   for   the   applicants   have   also
taken   exception   to   reciprocity   of   655   number.
We   do   not   find   that   there   is   any   error   in
reciprocity.   The   One­Man   Committee   took   a
decision   that   when   655   employees   are   coming
from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh, same
number   should   go   from   Andhra   Pradesh   to
Telangana   State.   In   the   Concluding   Report,
final   list   has   been   annexed,   which   is   utility­
wise   and   personnel­wise,   which   is   clear   and
unambiguous.   We,   thus,   do   not   find   any   merit
in   the   Miscellaneous   Applications   filed   by
Telangana State power utilities being M.A. Nos.
1286,   1290,   1292   and   1291,   which   are
dismissed.”
8.0. Thus,   from   the   above,   it   is   apparent   that   this   Court
specifically   observed   and   held   that   the   Final   Report
dated   26.12.2019   submitted   by   the   One   Man
Committee   along   with   allocation   list   is   final   and
conclusive   and   is   binding   to   both   the   States   and
Page   48  of   54

respective   Power   Utilities   viz.   Telangana   Power
Utilities and Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities. The only
exception   was   with   respect   to   those   employees   who
attained   the   age   of   58   years   in   the   year   2020.   Those
employees   with   the   consent   of   the   respective   Power
Utilities were kept out of allocation process. It is to be
noted   that   the   respective   applicants   –   84   petitioners
figured   in   the   final   list   prepared   by   One   Man
Committee.   The   names   of   the   petitioners   are   duly
mentioned in the said list of the One Man Committee
Report   which   is   prepared   Utilities   wise.   Out   of   84
petitioners and as per the Final List of 28 petitioners
had to be absorbed in TS Genco, 35 petitioners had to
be absorbed in TS Transco and 21 petitioners had to
be   absorbed   in   TS   Discoms.     As   observed   herein
above,   the   respective   Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities
have   already   relieved   respective   petitioners   and
thereafter   they   are   no   more   continued   with   their
erstwhile employers – Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities
respectively.   Therefore,   once   the   names   of   the   84
petitioners   figured   in   the   Final   List   prepared   by   the
Page   49  of   54

One   Man   Committee   and   the   Final   Report   has   been
accepted and approved by this Court and it is 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
tantamount   to   willful   disobedience   of   the   directions
issued by this Court. At this stage, it is required to be
noted   that   in   the   earlier   order,   this   Court   has
specifically   observed   and   made   it   clear   that   the
decision of the One Man Committee shall be final and
binding on all the parties including the Power Utilities
Companies of the two States as well as employees and
shall be executed by all the parties as an order of this
Court.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   the   respective
subsequent office orders dated 17.12.2020 (issued by
the   TS   Genco),   office   order   dated   18.12.2020   (issued
by   the     TS   Transco),   office   order   dated   18.12.2020
(   issued   by   the   TSNPDCL)   and   the   office   order   dated
19.12.2020 (issued by the TSSPDCL) are just contrary
Page   50  of   54

to the directions issued by this Court and contrary to
the   Supplementary   Report   /   Final   Report   submitted
by   the   One   Man   Committee   dated   20.06.2020   which
would   tantamount   to   willful   disobedience   of   the
directions issued by this 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   this   court   by   filing
respective Miscellaneous Applications and same came
to   be   dismissed   by   this   court   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   this   Court.     Telangana   State
Power Utilities cannot be permitted to raise the same
objections   /   issues   again   and   again,   which   were
earlier   raised   before   this   Court   and   this   Court   held
against   the   Telangana   State   Power   Utilities.   There
must   be   an   end   to   a   litigation.   By   permitting   the
Telangana   State   Power   Utilities   and   /or   any   other
parties   to   raise   the   issues   /   objections   again   and
Page   51  of   54

again,   the   object   and   purpose   of   constituting   One
Man   Committee   by   this   Court   would   be   frustrated.
This Court purposefully directed to constitute the One
Man   Committee   consisting   of   Mr.   Justice   D   M
Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of this Court to put an
end   to   the   litigation   with   respect   to   the   allocation   of
the employees and other  disputes with respect to the
respective Power Utilities of both the States. It is very
unfortunate   that   the   State   of   Telangana   and
Telangana Power Utilities have continued to re­agitate
the   issues,   which   are   already   held   against   them
earlier.
9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
we   hold   the   respective   Telangana   Power   Utilities   for
willful   and   deliberate   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   and   we
hold   them   guilty   for   the   contempt   for   the   same,   for
which, they are liable to be suitably punished. At this
Page   52  of   54

stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   observed
herein   above,   the   petitioners   are   already   relieved   by
the   Andhra   Pradesh   Power   Utilities   since   long   and
because   of   the   aforesaid   office   orders   the   respective
petitioners  are  not  permitted  to   join  in  the   respective
Telangana Power Utilities and their future is at stake
and   they   are   without   any   salary   from   the   date   they
are   relieved   by   the   respective   Andhra   Pradesh   Power
Utilities.   Before   we   pass   any   further   order   on   the
sentence   /   punishment,   we   give   one   additional
opportunity   to   the   respective   Telangana   Power
Utilities   i.e.   TS   Genco,   TS   Transco,   TSSPDCL   and
TSNPDCL to comply with the directions issued by this
Court   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 which would
have   a   direct   bearing   on   the   punishment   /   sentence
to   be   imposed.   We   give   further   two   weeks’   time   to
Page   53  of   54

respective   Telangana   Power   Utilities   /   Corporation   to
absorb   the   petitioners.   We   also   direct   the   respective
Telangana   Power   Utilities   viz.   TS   Genco,   TS   Transco,
TSSPDCL   and   TSNPDCL   to   pay   salary   and   other
service   benefits   to   the   petitioners   from   the   day   they
are   relieved   by   the   respective   Andhra   Pradesh   Power
Utilities, to be implemented within two weeks.  
Put up on 31.10.2022 for further order. 
………………………………… J.
              (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
New Delhi,                                    (A.S. BOPANNA)
October 11, 2022.
Page   54  of   54