Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD vs. D. PRABHAKARA RAO

Case Type: Contempt Petition Civil

Date of Judgment: 11-10-2022

Preview image for Y. SAI SATYA PRASAD vs. D. PRABHAKARA RAO

Full Judgment Text

 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 Signature Not Verified Appeal   No.11435   of   2018   and   other   allied Digitally signed by SNEHA Date: 2022.10.11 16:01:32 IST Reason: 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