High Court for State of TelanganaWP/2746/2015closed no costs

P.V. Subba Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Rep. By Its Special

2015-11-23P Naveen Rao4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.2746 of 2015 Between:

P.V.Subba Rao and others.

.. Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.2746 of 2015

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Energy and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Petitioners are working as Assistant Divisional Engineers in Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Tirupati. As a consequence of bifurcation of

the State of A.P., and the formation of State of Telangana, the Distribution Companies are also divided between two states. As a consequence of such division of Distribution Companies, the Kurnool and Ananthapur Districts, which were hitherto in Central Power Distribution Company Limited, are now become part of Southern Power Distribution Company Limited. By proceedings T.O.O. (Per-ED)/HRD & Plg) Rt.No.21 dated 16.07.2014, the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited constituted a Committee to sort out all service matters arising due to merging of Kurnool and Anantapur Districts in Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited.

3. The grievance of the petitioners for institution of this writ petition is that even though the Committee was constituted on 16.07.2014, it has not concluded its deliberations and no report is submitted. On account of delay in submission of the report, the services of the petitioners are adversely affected and though petitioners are otherwise eligible for promotion, their promotions are not effected.

4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has produced a copy of the report submitted by the Committee to the respondent company/corporation. Since the grievance in the writ petition is only with reference to not taking steps for completion of Committee report and as the report is already submitted, no cause in the writ petition survives and it has become infructuous.

5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed. However, if the petitioners have any grievance regarding the regularization of the service conditions or they are not satisfied with the terms recommended by the Committee, it is open to them to workout their remedies as available under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 23rd November, 2015