Supreme Court of India
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusV.V. BRAHMA REDDY & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 663
- Decided
- 6 September 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Section 82, not Section 77, governs the allocation of APSRTC and TSRTC employees, and the Board’s Agenda Note validly assigns Class III and IV employees to the corporation of the region in which they were recruited, so the High Court’s order is unsustainable.
Summary
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) issued a 2017 notification repatriating employees on deputation to their parent cadres in the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). The employees challenged the repatriation, and the High Court initially stayed the orders, directing them to report to their parent zones under TSRTC. On appeal, the High Court later directed permanent allocation of the employees to APSRTC based on an analogy with Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Supreme Court held that Section 77 applies only to state government employees, whereas Section 82 governs employees of public sector undertakings like APSRTC and TSRTC, and that the Board’s Agenda Note allocated Class III and IV employees to the corporation of the region in which they were recruited. Consequently, the respondents should remain with TSRTC in their original regions, rendering the High Court’s order unsustainable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeals, confirming the validity of the repatriation orders under Section 82.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 applies to employees of public sector undertakings such as APSRTC and TSRTC.
- Whether Section 82 of the Act governs the allocation of Class III and Class IV employees of the transport corporations post‑bifurcation.
- Whether the High Court correctly applied the provisions of the Act in directing permanent allocation of the respondents to APSRTC.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Section 77 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Section 82 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014Bifurcation of StateAPSRCTSRTCClass III and Class IV employeesValidity of repatriation ordersZones of initial appointmentRepatriating employeesAllocation of employeesParent zone
Judgment
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 75 : 2024 INSC 663
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024)
06 September 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
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
the notification. In writ appeals, taking note of the guidelines
for allocation formulated by both Corporations (APSRTC and
TSRTC), the High Court passed an interim order dated 18.04.2018
suspending the order of the Single judge of the High Court 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. In continuation of the said order, 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.
Headnotes†
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 – s.77 and s.82 –
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:
Held: From the text of the 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, it is found
* Author
76 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that the Board had 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 – 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 – 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 – 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 – There is no dispute about the applicability of
Section 82 – 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 – 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 – For the reasons
stated, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is
unsustainable. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
List of Acts
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Section 77 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Section
82 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014; Bifurcation
of State; Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
(APSRC); Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC);
Class III and Class IV employees; Validity of repatriation orders;
Zones of initial appointment; Repatriating employees; Allocation
of employees; Parent zone.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 77
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in WA No. 260 of 2018
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 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
Appearances for Parties
Gourab Banerji, Sr. Adv., Ashish Kumar Tiwari, Anurag Tiwari, Sahib
Patel, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vivek Sharma, GVR Choudary, Peram Ravi Teja, Vivek Sharma,
Manoj Tomar, Sri Ruma Sarasani, Krishna Kumar Singh, Advs. for
the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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, 20141 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
1 Hereinafter “the Act”.
2 Hereinafter “APSRTC”.
78 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
functioned in the unified State of Andhra Pradesh. After state
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, 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.
3 Hereinafter “TSRTC”.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 79
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
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 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 Zone 6 in the State of Telangana, are still working at
80 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 81
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
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 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 of 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
82 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 83
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
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 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
84 [2024] 9 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
in 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.
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
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 85
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v.
V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.
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. 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.
Result of the case: Matters disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 77 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014"Sign in to search