TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD v. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD INSC 661

Name of Case: TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD v. ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD INSC 661

Facts: This case was regarding an issue in the bifurcation of employees between the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh power utilities after the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 bifurcated the state into two. According to the said Act, bifurcation of employees in public sector undertakings was mandated to be distributed between the two new states within a year. Telangana Power Utilities had relieved 1,157 employees to join the Andhra Pradesh utilities based on nativity which led to litigation. The High Court rejected nativity-based allotment and passed an order of consensus. The Supreme Court then established a One-Man Committee, which was led by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari to finalize the employee allocation. Reports were filed and the list of 6,102 employees of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh power utilities was finalized subject to some objections and clarifications pending.

Issues: Whether it was a legal and proper distribution between the power utilities of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh? Were the directions given by the reports of the One-Man Committee binding upon the parties concerned?

Holding: The allocation was in terms of the principles enumerated in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and the One-Man Committee finalized it. The reports of the One-Man Committee ratified by the Supreme Court were binding on all parties.

Rationale: The statutory provisions followed by the One-Man Committee included Section 82 of the Reorganisation Act, wherein the corporate bodies were required to decide the modality of the allocation. The Committee also complied with the government orders which provided for the employee ratios and allocation principles. The Supreme Court held that the decisions of the Committee were final and binding. Furthermore, no party challenged the legality of the modalities of the Committee or the government orders that formed the basis of allocation. The Committee addressed grievances like ensuring proportionality, the number of employees from states was kept constant, and the adjustment according to the concept of equity, like allowing medical or spousal grounds for employees.

The Supreme Court upheld the process of allocation which was settled by the One-Man Committee and dismissed miscellaneous applications that raise challenges. The judgments pronounced by the bench were termed as just and in order.