Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

Section 82, Not Section 77, Governs Public Sector Staff Allocation: Supreme Court Rules on APSRTC Employee Repatriation

09 September 2024 4:34 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court clarifies statutory provisions under Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, restoring original cadre positions for APSRTC employees. In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India on September 6, 2024, reversed the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision regarding the allocation of employees between the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014. The bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, ruled that the High Court erred in applying Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act to the repatriation of Class III and Class IV employees, emphasizing that Section 82 and subsequent guidelines governed the matter.

The case involved employees from APSRTC, primarily conductors, drivers, and other Class III and Class IV staff, who were temporarily deputed to zones that became part of Andhra Pradesh following the bifurcation. These employees had been originally appointed in zones that now fall under TSRTC's jurisdiction, but post-bifurcation guidelines had not been finalized when repatriation orders were issued in 2017.

The employees challenged the repatriation orders in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which initially ruled in their favor, setting aside the orders. The High Court, in a subsequent division bench ruling, directed the permanent allocation of these employees to the zones in which they were serving at the time of bifurcation, applying Section 77 of the Act.

Application of Sections 77 and 82: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reliance on Section 77, which pertains to the allocation of state government employees. The Court pointed out that APSRTC and TSRTC employees, being part of public sector undertakings, are governed by Section 82, which mandates the corporations to determine the modalities for employee allocation between the two states. The judgment highlighted the statutory framework governing public sector employees, emphasizing that “Section 82 clearly states that the Corporations shall determine the modalities for distributing their employees between the successor states.”

Significance of the Agenda Note: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha underscored the relevance of the Agenda Note prepared by the APSRTC Board in 2017, which detailed the allocation of Class III and Class IV employees. The note specified that these employees, who were recruited regionally, would be allocated to the corporation operating in the region post-bifurcation. "The decision of the Board regarding the allocation of regional cadre employees is final and unchallenged," the bench noted.

Repatriation of Employees: The Court also noted that the employees had already been repatriated to their parent zones under TSRTC following an interim order in 2018. Justice Narasimha observed, "The respondents had returned to their parental zones, and the High Court's subsequent ruling contradicts this established position."

The Supreme Court's decision rested on a careful examination of Sections 77 and 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. While Section 77 applies to state government employees, the Court clarified that Section 82 governs the allocation of public sector employees, such as those in APSRTC and TSRTC. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to properly consider the 2017 Agenda Note, which provided the final modalities for allocating Class III and Class IV employees.

The judgment also took into account the fact that the employees were recruited regionally, with recruitment and seniority maintained at the regional level. "The Board’s decision to allocate employees to their respective corporations based on regional cadre remains valid," the Court stated.

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, writing for the bench, remarked, "The High Court has incorrectly relied on Section 77 and has failed to notice Section 82 and the follow-up action taken thereunder. The Agenda Note dated 16.08.2017 provides a clear and final resolution for employee allocation."

The bench further added, "There is no dispute that the respondents were recruited at the regional level and belong to the successor state Corporation in which the region falls."

The Supreme Court's decision reinstates the repatriation orders issued by APSRTC, affirming the guidelines set forth in the Agenda Note of 2017. By clarifying the application of Section 82 in the allocation of public sector employees post-bifurcation, this judgment reinforces the legal framework guiding state reorganizations and employee allocation. The ruling has broad implications for the treatment of public sector employees in future state bifurcations and ensures consistency in the application of statutory provisions.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024​.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. V.V. Brahma Reddy & Anr.

Similar News