Transmission Corporation Inherited Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board's Service Regulations, Power To Amend Impliedly Available: Telangana HC
While upholding the validity of an order issued by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TRANSCO) deleting beneficial provisions regarding service weightage for promotion to Additional Assistant Engineer posts, the Telangana High Court ruled that the corporation has the power to amend the relevant service regulations. A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice...
While upholding the validity of an order issued by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TRANSCO) deleting beneficial provisions regarding service weightage for promotion to Additional Assistant Engineer posts, the Telangana High Court ruled that the corporation has the power to amend the relevant service regulations.
A division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao upheld the validity of T.O.O. (Jt-Secy-Per) Ms.No.1475 dated September 8, 2022 issued by TRANSCO which deleted the beneficial provision as per which if a sub-engineer had commenced work before getting their diploma, half of that pre-diploma service time would be counted while considering promotion.
The Court held that TRANSCO had the competence to amend service regulations inherited from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB). It took note of a February 18, 1999 office order pursuant to which the APSEB's proceedings and regulations are deemed to be issued by TRANSCO.
“In this backdrop, if Regulation 41 is read, the argument of Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel deserves to be accepted that regulations made by powers of 'Board', in view of Regulation 41 may be read as power of TRANSCO. Since regulation and proceedings of the 'Board' became regulation and proceedings of the TRANSCO, the another limb of argument of petitioners based on Rule 7 (7) of Rules of 1999 deserves to be discarded. In other words, the Rule 7 (7) permits the TRANSCO to frame regulation. Once the previous regulation became the regulation of TRANSCO, the power to amend the same is impliedly available with TRANSCO. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 08.09.2022," it said.
Background
The petitioners were Sub-Engineers working with the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TRANSCO). Prior to the impugned order, they were eligible for appointment by transfer as Additional Assistant Engineers under the existing regulations. However, through Amendment II issued via T.O.O. dated September 8, 2022 TRANSCO deleted certain provisions and Note-3 (service weightage) contained in Annexure-I of Regulation 6(a) of Part III of Andhra Pradesh Service Electricity Board (APSEB) Service Regulations.
The deleted note had allowed computation of service period by counting half the continuous service rendered prior to acquiring LEE diploma qualification, subject to a maximum of four years. Against this order the petitioners moved the high court.
The petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel M. Surender Rao, primarily challenged TRANSCO's competence to issue the amendment. Their key arguments were that The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed, and Section 79(c), which originally empowered the Board to make regulations, was no longer applicable.
They argued that no notification under Section 23(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 was issued specifying TRANSCO's powers. It was further argued that the amendment violated Section 24 of the Reforms Act 1998 and Rule 7 of the Transfer Scheme Rules, 1999. It was also argued that the regulation wasn't placed before the State Legislature as required under Section 179 of the Electricity Act, 2003
TRANSCO and other respondents, represented by Senior Counsel G. Vidyasagar and others, contended that the writ petition lacked specific pleadings challenging the order's competence. It was argued that TRANSCO inherited APSEB's powers through an office order dated February 18, 1999 and thus the amendment was within TRANSCO's regulatory powers. It was also argued that mere non-citation or wrong citation of the source of power doesn't invalidate an order if actual power exists.
Findings
On the contention mention in the plea that the right to be considered for appointment by transfer was completely taken away, the court said that during the course of hearing, it was "neither contended nor established that entire right for consideration for promotion was taken away".
"The 'note' which has been withdrawn only takes away certain weightage and does not take away the right of consideration. Curiously, the petitioners in the pleadings have not mentioned with necessary clarity as to what is the nature of breach of Section 24 of the Act of 1998 and Rule 7 of Rules of 1999," it said.
Pointing to averments made in a paragraph in the petition as "too sketchy" the court said that the petitioner should have pleaded with "accuracy and precision" about the nature of breach of Section 24 of the Reforms Act 1998 and Rule 7 of Rules of 1999.
"Similarly, there is no foundation/pleading in the petition regarding nature of breach of Section 23 (3) of Act of 1999 and tripartite settlements", it said.
It also noted that there was no pleading that there was no notification issued by the State Government specifying the powers of the 'Board', which are exercisable by the TRANSCO, adding that the "question of issuance of notification is a question of fact and hence, it should have been pleaded to enable the other side to controvert it".
"In absence thereof, oral argument will not cut any ice," it added.
It thereafter dismissed the petition.
Case title: M. Lakshma Naik and others vs. The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited and others
WP. NO. 35647 of 2022 and 34543 of 2023
Counsel petitioners: M. Surender Rao, Senior Counsel representing P. Anusha and Sri Srinivasa Madiraju.
Counsel for respondents: G. Vidyasagar, Senior Counsel representing K. Udaya. V Uma Devi, SC for TRANSCO. Sakir Ali Danish SC for TSNPDCL. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, Senior Counsel.