Supreme Court of India
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport … vs V. V. Brahma Reddy on 6 September, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 663 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5267 of 2024
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
V.V. BRAHMA REDDY & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5268 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5269 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5270 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5271 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5272 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5273 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5274 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5275 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.09.06
WITH
16:42:04 IST
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5276 of 2024
Reason:
1
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5277 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5278 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5279 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5280 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5281 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5282 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5283 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5284 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5285 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5286 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5287 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5288 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5289 of 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5290 of 2024
2
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5291 of 2024
JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. These appeals are against the common judgment of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 21.11.2019 dismissing the writ
appeals filed by the appellant herein and upholding the order of
the single judge of the High Court allowing the respondents’ writ
petitions and quashing orders repatriating them to their parental
zones. Relevant and necessary facts are as follows.
2. The State of Telangana was formed under Section 3 of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 1 comprises of territories
mentioned therein, and by virtue of Section 4, remaining the
territories constituted the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
bifurcation of states came into effect on 02.06.2014 and this is
declared to be the appointed date under the Act.
2.1 Prior to bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh,
the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRC)2
functioned in the unified State of Andhra Pradesh. After state
1
Hereinafter “the Act”.
2
Hereinafter “APSRTC”.
3
reorganisation, the Corporation was bifurcated and the Telangana
State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC)3, respondent no. 2
herein, was formed w.e.f. 02.06.2015 (appointed date for the
Corporations) to function in the State of Telangana, while APSRTC
continued to function in the residual part of State of Andhra
Pradesh.
2.2 The respondents in these appeals were Class III and Class IV
employees who were working as conductors, drivers and shramiks.
They were appointed between 2014 to 2017 in districts, and more
particularly zones carved out under the Presidential Order, read
with Article 371D of the Constitution, that formed part of
Telangana, which areas now fall within the State of Telangana.
These respondents were temporarily deputed to zones which now
form part of the bifurcated State of Andhra Pradesh. The orders of
deputation were extended by way of several notifications issued
from time to time, some deputations were made even after the
bifurcation of the Corporations, pending finalisation of guidelines
for permanent allocation of employees. We may mention at this
very stage that the issue in these appeals is about validity of the
repatriation orders that were passed by the appellant APSRTC,
3
Hereinafter “TSRTC”.
4
relegating the respondents to the zones of their initial
appointment.
3. Returning to the chronology of facts, it needs to be noted that
on 18.06.2015 the Government of India reconstituted the APSRTC
Board of Directors with members from the central government,
State of Andhra Pradesh, and State of Telangana to determine the
permanent allocation of employees between the Corporations. On
16.08.2017, the Board prepared a detailed Agenda Note, which
was approved on 24.08.2017. The Agenda Note sets out the
modalities for allocation of state cadre, zonal and regional cadre of
employees of the Corporations.
4. Before the finalisation of the Agenda Note, the appellant
issued a notification dated 08.06.2017 repatriating employees who
were on deputation, including the present respondents, to their
parent cadres in TSRTC, i.e., to the zones in which they were
initially appointed. The respondents challenged this notification
and the consequent repatriation orders passed by Depot Managers
by filing writ petitions before the High Court.
5. The writ petitions were heard and allowed by the Single Judge
by an order dated 10.11.2017 on the ground that, upon bifurcation
of the two Corporations the guidelines for allocation of employees
5
between them had not been finalised. Thus, the single judge set
aside the repatriation orders.
6. The appellant filed the writ appeals and brought the Agenda
Note dated 16.08.2017 and its approval dated 24.08.2017 to the
notice of the division bench. Taking note of the guidelines for
allocation formulated by both Corporations, the High Court passed
an interim order dated 18.04.2018 suspending the order of the
single judge and directing the respondents to report in their parent
zones under the TSRTC, where they were initially appointed, as the
guidelines for allocation of employees were jointly finalised by
APSRTC and TSRTC. The matter was listed for further hearing on
the issue of payment of salaries. The relevant portion of the order
is extracted herein:
“We are informed that the posts, with which we are
concerned in this batch of cases, are not State level posts
and the orders of repatriation, which were subjected to
challenge, merely sought to send back the employees
concerned who were on transfer in zones other than the
zones in which they were appointed. As the posts were only
zonal posts, the question of allocation of the employees
occupying such posts between the two new States would
not arise.
We are also informed that the Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and the Telangana State
Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) have come out with
guidelines jointly with regard to the employees of the
erstwhile APSRTC and allocation and apportionment of
such employees. In the light of the order passed by the
learned Judge setting aside the repatriation orders, the
employees, who are on transfer in Zones 1 to 4 of Andhra
Pradesh, though they were appointed either in Zone 5 or in
6
Zone 6 in the State of Telangana, are still working at the
transferred location. This situation cannot be allowed to
continue in the light of the subsequent guidelines formulated
by both the Corporations.
Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
TSRTC, would inform this Court that his client is ready and
willing to accept the employees sought to be repatriated by
the present APSRTC.
In that view of the matter, there shall be interim suspension
as prayed for. The employees covered by the repatriated
orders, the Respondents in these appeals, shall forthwith
report in their parent zones under the TSRTC where they
were appointed. The issue of payment of salaries to the
Respondents-employees will be considered on the next date
of hearing.
Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh
appearing for the APSRTC undertakes to use his good
offices to see that the issue as to payment of salaries is
resolved amicably.
Post on 13.06.2018.”
7. In continuation of the above-referred order, the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati took up the writ appeals and passed
the order impugned before us. This time, the High Court took a
different view of the matter and directed permanent allocation of
the respondents in their deputational posts falling in the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The High Court also ruled on their seniority. In
coming to this conclusion, the High Court drew an analogy with
the 3rd proviso to Section 77(2) of the Act. It held that even though
Section 77 applies to state government employees, an analogy
must be adopted by the appellant for allocation of its own
7
employees. Hence, local, district, zonal, and multi-zonal cadre
employees, even of corporations, will be deemed to be allotted to
the successor state where they are serving on the appointed date.
Since the respondents were posted and serving under the
appellant on 02.06.2015, it was directed that they shall be deemed
to be permanently allocated to the APSRTC in the zones where they
were working.
8. Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the High Court’s analogy with
Section 77 is incorrect and that it has not taken note of Section 82
of the Act or properly considered the guidelines framed by the
Corporations for allocation of Class III and Class IV employees. He
has taken us through the Agenda Note dated 16.08.2017, which
provides that Class III and Class IV employees are recruited at a
regional level and belong to the respective Corporation in which
the region falls after bifurcation. Hence, the Board found that there
is no necessity for formulating guidelines for the allotment of these
employees between the two Corporations. He submits that this
decision has not been challenged and is hence final. He has also
submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 18.04.2018,
the respondents have already reported at their parent zones falling
8
under TSRTC. Sri Ruma Sarasani, learned counsel appearing for
TSRTC, respondent no. 2 supports the appellant’s case.
8.1 On the other hand, Mr. G.V.R. Choudary, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and
also submits that the approval of the Agenda Note dated
24.08.2017 is only with respect to allocation of state-cadre
employees, and does not extend to Class III and Class IV
employees. Hence, the modalities for allocation have not been
decided as required under Section 82.
9. Having heard the parties, the issue before us if whether the
High Court’s reliance on Section 77 is correct as it applies to state
government employees, and whether it is Section 82 that governs
the services of the respondents as it relates to employees of Public
Sector Undertakings.
10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to
consider Section 77 as well as Section 82 of the Act. Examination
of the scope and ambit of these provisions sufficiently indicates the
correct answer to the question arising for consideration. The
provisions are extracted herein:
“Section 77. Provisions relating to other services.— (1)
Every person who immediately before the appointed day is
serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of9
the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that
day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the
affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is required,
by general or special order of the Central Government to serve
provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of
Telangana:
Provided that every direction under this sub-section issued
after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed
day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments
of the successor States.
(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central
Government shall, by general or special order, determine the
successor State to which every person referred to in sub-
section (1) shall be finally allotted for service, after
consideration of option received by seeking option from the
employees, and the date with effect from which such
allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect:
Provided that even after the allocation has been made, the
Central Government may, in order to meet any deficiency in
the service, depute officers of other State services from one
successor State to the other:
Provided further that as far as local, district, zonal and multi-
zonal cadres are concerned, the employees shall continue to
serve, on or after the appointed day, in that cadre:
Provided also that the employees of local, district, zonal and
multi-zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of the successor
States, shall be deemed to be allotted to that successor State:
Provided also that if a particular zone or multi-zone falls in
both the successor States, then the employees of such zonal
or multi-zonal cadre shall be finally allotted to one or the other
successor States in terms of the provisions of this sub-
section.
(3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions
of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not
already serving therein, be made available for serving in the
successor State from such date as may be agreed upon
between the Governments of the successor States or, in
default of such agreement, as may be determined by the
Central Government: Provided that the Central Government
shall have the power to review any of its orders issued under
this section.
***
Section 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
10
concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the
personnel between the two successor States.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. From the text of these provisions, it is evident that Section 77
applies to state government employees. Section 82 clearly states
that the Corporations shall determine the modalities for
distributing their employees between the successor states.
Pursuant to this, the Board prepared the Agenda Note dated
16.08.2017 that sets out the allocation of various kinds of
employees between APSRTC and TSRTC. Upon going through the
Agenda Note, we find that the Board has decided that Class III and
Class IV employees, who are appointed at the regional level, are to
be allocated to the Corporation in which the region falls after
bifurcation. We are extracting the relevant portion here:
“Regional Level Recruitments: The Class III and IV cadres
like Drivers, Conductors, Mechanics, Artisans, etc., are
recruited at Regional Level i.e., Revenue District wise. There
are 12 regions in 13 revenue districts of residual AP state
since Srikakulam and Vizianagaram districts are
considered as North East Coast Region. There were 10
districts in Telangana area prior to the appointed day i.e.,
on 02.06.2014. the seniority of these posts is also
maintained at Regional level. The presidential order of
making recruitment in the ratio of 80% of the posts to local
district candidates and 20% to non (illegible) candidates is
followed in such recruitments. Since the recruitments and
seniority levels are at regional level, the distribution of these
employees between two entities i.e., in 67,868 posts in
residual APSRTC and 61,864 to TSRTC should not be an
issue as they were recruited at Regional level (local cadre)
and belong to the respective successor state/corporation in11
which the region falls after bifurcation irrespective of their
place of birth or domicile or schooling etc.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents were
recruited at the regional level and belong to the successor state
Corporation in which the region falls.
13. In this view of the matter, following the statutory mandate of
Section 82 read with the Agenda Note dated 16.08.2017, the
respondents will continue their employment in the same region,
which is under the present TSRTC.
14. The High Court has incorrectly relied on Section 77 of the Act
and has in fact failed to notice Section 82 and the follow-up action
taken thereunder. The High Court also ignored the correct
enunciation of the applicable law in the order dated 18.04.2018,
whereunder the respondents were directed to report at their
parental zones as per the guidelines. As there is no dispute about
the applicability of Section 82 even at the bar, the submission of
Mr. G.V.R. Choudary that the modalities for allocation have not
been decided cannot be accepted in light of the Agenda Note dated
16.08.2017.
12
15. We have also gone through the prayer in the writ petition of
Mr. V.V. Brahma Reddy (respondent no. 1 in Civil Appeal No.
5267/2024), under which there is no challenge to the Agenda Note
and its approval. The division bench of the High Court failed to
note that the respondents who were on deputation were not
absorbed in the deputed posts. In fact, their seniority is continued
in their parental zones.
16. The High Court also did not consider the subsequent
development when the respondents were in fact repatriated to their
parent cadre as a consequence of the order passed by the division
bench on 18.04.2018. It is for this reason that this Court had, at
the stage of admission, stayed the judgment of the division bench
on 05.10.2020, which stay is continuing till date. The consequence
is that the respondents have returned to this parent cadre in the
State of Telangana.
17. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, the decision of the
division bench is unsustainable. We therefore, allow Civil Appeal
Nos. 5267, 5268, 5269, 5270, 5271, 5272, 5273, 5274, 5275,
5276, 5277, 5278, 5279, 5280, 5281, 5282, 5283, 5284, 5285,
5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, 5290 and 5291 of 2024 and set aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
13
260, 290, 291, 292, 303, 304, 306, 311, 312, 313, 318, 320, 321,
322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 354, 355, 356, 360, 386, 389 and 568 of
2018 dated 21.11.2019 and dismiss the Writ Petition Nos. 25880,
25881, 25886, 25196, 25198, 25201, 25214, 24825, 24849,
24870, 24872, 24874, 24891, 24941, 24987, 25139, 25170,
24605, 24609, 24690, 24697, 24723, 24773, 489 and 6065 of
2017 dated 10.11.2017.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
………………………………….J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
NEW DELHI;
September 06, 2024
14