Telangana High Court
Smt. S.Sai Kiran Mai vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 7 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.20278 of 2020
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ
petition claiming for allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner's
mother, Smt. P. Vijayasree, was an employee serving the unified
State of Andhra Pradesh and unfortunately, she expired on
08.10.2015. The undisputed facts make it further clear that by an
order dated 20.10.2017, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior
Assistant in the services of the Civil Supplies Department in
Hyderabad.
The post of Junior Assistant is a district level post and
keeping in view the third proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 77 of
the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act'),
the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Telangana. It is a
deemed allocation.
Section 77 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
"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 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
(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 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
before this Court that the mother of the petitioner was entitled to
be transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh during her lifetime,
as an order was passed in Original Application No.6614 of 2010
and therefore, as the mother was not transferred and she expired
on 08.10.2015, now the daughter should be transferred.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the right accrued in
favour of the mother came to an end the moment she expired and
3
now the judgment, which was in favour of the mother, cannot be
implemented. The statutory provision makes it very clear that the
petitioner has been rightly allocated to the State of Telangana, as
she is holding a district level post, and she has been appointed in a
District, which now falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the
State of Telangana i.e., Hyderabad. This Court, in the light of the
reply filed by the respondents, does not find any reason to interfere
with the deemed allocation of the petitioner. No case for
interference is made out in the matter.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
07.02.2022
JSU
