Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 858 (TS)

P. Santosh Kumar v. Government of India

2024-11-14

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, SUJOY PAUL

body2024
ORDER : (Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : "....to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on part of the respondents in allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide orders No.(1)/217, dated 04.10.2017 of the 1st respondent as communicated vide G.O. Ms.No.133 General Administration (SR-I) Department dated 04.10.2017 of the 5th respondent by not extending the spouse factor as provided under Clause 18(k)&(L) of the guidelines dated 29.10.2014 of the Government of India basing on the recommendations of the Advisory committee as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP Reorganization Act, 2014 and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana as per his option and taking into consideration the spouse factor and other relevant factors and pass such other order or orders...," 2. Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 1, learned Government Pleader for Services A.P. for respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and the learned Government Pleader for Services- III for respondent Nos. 3 and 6. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Section Officer in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 22.07.1999 in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and subsequently promoted to a Senior Assistant on 03.03.2011 and further promoted to a Section Officer on 04.11.2013. His unit of appointment was in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner was a local candidate of the State of Telangana as he had pursued his studies in the State of Telangana and satisfied the definition of the local candidate as defined in the Presidential Orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State of Andhra Pradesh was re-organized through the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and the existing State of Andhra Pradesh is re-organized as the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State of Andhra Pradesh was re-organized through the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and the existing State of Andhra Pradesh is re-organized as the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana. Consequent to the reorganization of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of India constituted an advisory committee for the State Government Employees to delineate objective and transparent criteria for the allocation of personnel belonging to the State Government in the existing cadre of different services of Andhra Pradesh between the two successor States i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana determining the cadre strength to recommend special individual allocation of the State Government Employees and to consider any representation made by the State Government Employees to ensure fair and equitable treatment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of India issued guidelines for the final allocation of State Cadre employees under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. Pursuant to the Government of India guidelines, the General Administration (SR) The Department, representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Telangana issued Circular Memo No.FSA/01/2014, dated 30.09.2014, concerning the modalities for allocating the State Service Employees. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to the guidelines, the petitioner has opted for the State of Telangana and his case was required to be considered in terms of his local status and on the spouse's grounds for allocation to the State of Telangana. After issuing the guidelines, the respondents have communicated a tentative allocation list with respect to the APAT vide Notification No. 19326-A/SR/2016, dated 06.09.2017. The petitioner was shown as allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh despite the petitioner being a local candidate to the State of Telangana as defined under the Presidential Orders. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's wife is working in South Central Railways, Hyderabad, as such, the petitioner's case was required to be considered on the spouse grounds as provided under para 18(k) and (1) of the guidelines communicated by the Government of India through F.No.27/13/2013-SRS, dated 29.10.2014. Para 18(i) of the guidelines provides that the employees who are members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation based on their option if they are local candidates. Para 18(i) of the guidelines provides that the employees who are members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation based on their option if they are local candidates. The petitioner's case was required to be considered in terms of the three factors, i.e. spouse ground, local status and SC category. However, the respondents have ignored the petitioner's claim for allocation to the State of Telangana, and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory attitude by not applying the spouse factor and contending that the said protection is applicable with respect to the personnel working in All India Service and the State Service. After the final allocation, the petitioner has been requesting for allocation to the State of Telangana on a deputation basis, but the same was not considered. 9. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana. 10. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that the tentative allocation of employees of APAT was notified on 06.09.2017 for submission of representation, if any, against the said allocation by the aggrieved employees within two weeks from the date of publication of the Notification. In the tentative allocation, the petitioner was allotted to AP against his option, and he made representation for allotment to Telangana on the ground that he is local to Telangana, belonging to the SC category and his spouse is a Central Government employee under Para 18 (k) of the Guidelines. The petitioner did not furnish his preferential claim in the prescribed format Cir.Memo. No. 19184/SRI/A1/2014-5, dated 12.02.2015. With regard to his preferential claim under SC Category, it is submitted that as per Cir.Memo.No.19184/SRI/ A1/ 2014-7, dated 25.02.2015, Para 3A, Godali and Godagula were notified as SC in the Andhra Pradesh only while Beda (Budga) Jangam were notified only in the Telangana State. Hence, the allocation of the employees will be made to the respective States, where they are notified if they have opted for either of the States. However, the petitioner did not submit proof that he belongs to Beda (Budga) Jangam; therefore, he did not consider his preferential claim under the SC category. Hence, the allocation of the employees will be made to the respective States, where they are notified if they have opted for either of the States. However, the petitioner did not submit proof that he belongs to Beda (Budga) Jangam; therefore, he did not consider his preferential claim under the SC category. The petitioner's representation for preferential allocation to Telangana was rejected as eleven (11) employees who were senior to him opted to TS and they were allotted to TS, and there are no posts in Telangana to accommodate the petitioner in the State of Telangana. Therefore, the petitioner was finally allotted to Andhra Pradesh. 11. It is further stated that with regard to the claim for prioritized allocation on spouse employee ground, it is submitted that para 18(I) of the Guidelines on allocation prescribed that the spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Government Institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the A.P. Reorganisation Act, shall as far as practicable be local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options. The petitioner's claim is not covered under the above Guidelines, as the petitioner's wife works at South Central Railways. 12. It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted representation against his tentative allocation to Andhra Pradesh. His representation was considered and rejected as eleven (11) of his seniors, who are local Optees to Telangana, were allotted to Telangana, and there are no posts to accommodate him in Telangana. The seniority rank of the petitioner is 24, whereas the cases of his seniors viz; Sri G. Goutham, Seniority Rank No. 5, who claimed preferential allocation to Telangana on Spouse employee grounds and Smt. D. Padmavathi, Seniority Rank No. 16, who claimed preferential allocation to Telangana on widowed employee grounds were considered and they were allotted to the Telangana. 13. It is further submitted that the allocation process adopted in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, as referred by the petitioner, is not relevant in the present case. The distribution of employees in other states was based on a several of districts, whereas in respect of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, it is done on population ratio as per A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and based on local status as per Presidential Order on Public Employment. The distribution of employees in other states was based on a several of districts, whereas in respect of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, it is done on population ratio as per A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and based on local status as per Presidential Order on Public Employment. The principles adopted in the other States cannot be transposed as principles for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 14. It is further stated that with regard to complying with the interim order dated 14.06.2019 of this Court, the guidelines issued for Inter-State deputation envisage that the employee seeking inter-state deputation has to apply to the Head of the Department/Institution concerned through proper channel in the prescribed proforma duly signed by the Head of Office/Department or Institution to the Special Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary to Government of the Department concerned, after the verification. On receipt of the application from the employee, the Special Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government of the Department shall address communication in writing to the Special Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Secretary to Government of the Department concerned in the other State for which the employee is seeking such deputation. The petitioner is presently under the control of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit his application to the HOD of APAT, which will be sent to the Administrative department concerned and forwarded to the State of Telangana for his Inter-State deputation to Telangana. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 filed a counter affidavit stating that the cadre strength and its proposed distribution between the States was published on 06.06.2017 through the website, giving ten days to submit representations, if any. The last date for receipt of representations was 16.06.2017. In the cadre of Court Officers, the cadre strength is 26, out of which 15 posts were allotted to Andhra Pradesh, and 11 posts were allotted to Telangana. The petitioner did not submit any representation against the proposed distribution of cadre strength of SO/Court Officer/Scrutiny Officer between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 16. It is further stated that the Deputy Registrar furnished the seniority list existing as of 01.06.2014. Based on the seniority list, options were called for from the employees through Notification No. 19326-A/SR/2016, dated 13.07.2017, giving two weeks to exercise the options. 16. It is further stated that the Deputy Registrar furnished the seniority list existing as of 01.06.2014. Based on the seniority list, options were called for from the employees through Notification No. 19326-A/SR/2016, dated 13.07.2017, giving two weeks to exercise the options. The last date for exercising the option was 27.07.2017. The petitioner, who is working as a Section Officer, exercised his option, saying that he belongs to the local cadre of Telangana State and opted for Telangana and requested to allot Telangana. The petitioner stands at Sl.No.24 in the seniority list. Out of 25 employees in the cadre, 11 of his seniors, who were local to Telangana, have opted for Telangana and allotted to Telangana against the 11 posts allotted to Telangana. There are no posts in Telangana for his allocation; hence, the petitioner was allotted to Andhra Pradesh as per the provisions of 18(f) guidelines. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the guidelines relating to the allocation of State Services Employees under the AP-Reorganization Act, 2014. Guideline No. 18 (k) and (L) reads as follows :- k) Spouse of an all India Service (AIS) Officer who belongs to a State cadre or is an employee of a State Government institution shall be allocated, where so desired by the spouse, to the State to which the AIS officer is allocated. I) Spouses in State Cadre in Government or in State Government institution, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options." 18. As per the above guidelines, as per the petitioner's contention, he is eligible for allocation to the State of Telangana under the spouse's grounds. 19. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.(TR)Nos.23775 of 2016, dated 27.02.2017 and W.P.(TR).No.5680 of 2017, dated 29.01.2019. The findings of this Court :- 20. 19. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.(TR)Nos.23775 of 2016, dated 27.02.2017 and W.P.(TR).No.5680 of 2017, dated 29.01.2019. The findings of this Court :- 20. As per the petitioner's contention, he opted for the State of Telangana, but the respondents have not considered his case and allotted him to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents stated that initially, the petitioner did not make any application, but after the issuance of the Circular Memo, dated 06.10.2017, the petitioner made an application under the spouse's grounds and based on the technical aspects did not consider his case. 21. By virtue of the interim order dated 24.06.2019 passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.3887 of 2019, the deputation was initially given to the petitioner for a period of three years from 01.06.2021 to 31.05.2024. As per Circular Memo, dated 06.10.2017, clause (h) states that 'the deputation shall be initially for a period of three years extendable by another two years'. Invoking this provision, as the deputation of the petitioner would come to an end on 31.05.2024, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 in W.P. No.3887 of 2019 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 11.03.2024 and 28.02.2024 for extension of deputation for a further period of two years from 01.06.2024 to 01.06.2026. On 01.05.2024, this Court disposed of the said I.A. by directing the respondents to take a decision on the representations dated 28.02.2024 and 11.03.2024 within fifteen days from the date of production of copy of the order. The petitioner is directed to resubmit both the aforesaid representations, along with copy of this order, before the respondents. The respondents were directed to communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner. Though the Circular states that the initial deputation of three years can be extended by another two years, the respondents considered his representations and were not inclined to continue in the State of Telangana and relieved the petitioner from the State of Telangana. 22. While discussing the allocation of the employees on spouse grounds, this Court in W.P.(TR).No.5680 of 2017, dated 28.01.2019, held as follows :- ".... 22. While discussing the allocation of the employees on spouse grounds, this Court in W.P.(TR).No.5680 of 2017, dated 28.01.2019, held as follows :- ".... Deliberating on the content of those sub-clauses and taking into consideration the order of the Division Bench of the Court in Dr.S.Shoba Rani V. The State Reorganization Department (W.P. No.23775 of 2016, dated 27.02.2017), we are of the view that the petitioner is eligible to stand allotted to the State of Telangana on spouse ground. The concept being a spouse of an All India Service Officer, who belongs to a State Cadre is wide enough to take within its view those who are employed in institutions under the control of the Government of India. The Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services is under the control of the Ministry of Earth Sciences of Government of India and there is no reason to assume that it is not part of the group identified as All India Service Officer for the purpose of the protective covenant in favour of spouses in sub- clauses (k) and (l) of Clause 18 of the guidelines. We are, therefore of the view that this writ petition is eligible to succeed." 23. In W.P.(TR).No.23775 OF 2016, dated 27.02.2017, this Court held as follows :- "The basic principle underlying these guidelines is therefore to protect and keep together employed spouses who would otherwise be separated owing to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping the spirit and intent underlying this principle, the guidelines should be implemented. Merely because Clause (1) does not speak of employees working in Central Government Public Sector Undertakings, it does not mean that spouses of such employees, who are working in the State cadre, are not to be accommodated where they are working, Clause (1) States in no uncertain terms that allocation shall, as far as practicable, be made so as to kept the spouses together. The import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh is not to break up marriages. The import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh is not to break up marriages. The authorities therefore have to conceive, formulate and implement the guidelines keeping this in mind Any shortfall in the guidelines in this regard cannot be taken literally to mean that spouses, whose cases do not fall within the four corners of the instructions as set out therein, are to be left out in the cold and must suffer marital separation." 24. In the present case, the wife of the petitioner is working in South Central Railways, Hyderabad and the petitioner is working as a Section Officer in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Initially, the petitioner has not made any application for allotment to the State of Telangana, but after issuance of the Circular Memo, dated 06.10.2017, the petitioner has made an application under three grounds i.e., spouse ground, local status and Scheduled Caste category. However, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner for allocation to the State of Telangana. But, in view of the above observations of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and proper to direct the respondents to allocate the petitioner for the State of Telangana under spouse grounds. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana in the available department, taking into consideration his spouse factor and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.