1 Mezizragore

Ram Mohan Reddy Mla Bibliography


List of candidates for Pargi Constituency 2014

The table below shows who are the contesting BJP, Congress, independent etc. candidates from the Pargi Assembly Constituency in the Telangana Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) Elections 2014.


Sitting and previous MLAs from Pargi Assembly Constituency

Below is the list of winners and runners-up in the Pargi assembly elections conducted so far.

YearA. C. No.Assembly Constituency NameType of A.C.Winner Candidates NameGenderPartyVotesRunner UPGenderPartyVotes
201454PargiGENTammannagari Ram Mohan ReddyMaleINC68098Koppula Harishwar ReddyMaleTRS62935
200954PargiGENKoppula Harsihwar ReddyMTDP53099T.Ram Mohan ReddyMIND38655
2004203PargiGENKoppula Harishwar Reddy MTDP59809Kumtom Ram ReddyMTCP52161
1999203PargiGENKoppula Harishwar ReddyMTDP60360Kamatham Ram ReddyMINC51744
1994203PargiGENKoppula Harishwar Reddy MTDP67433Kamatam Ram ReddyMINC32918
1989203PargiGENKamatam Ram Reddy MINC52368Koppula Harishwar ReddyMTDP48179
1985203PargiGENKoppula Harishwa Reddy MTDP53920Ahmed ShareefMINC21408
1983203PargiGENAhmed Shareef (S/O Abdul Gani) MINC25751Koppala Harishwara ReddyMIND25695
1978203PargiGENAhmed ShareefMINC(I)32488K. Ram ReddyMINC23915
1972202PargiGENK. Ram ReddyMINC31007Ananth ReddyMIND18259
1967202PargiGENR. ReddyMIND21087A. ShareefMINC20237
1962224PargiGENM. Rama Deva ReddyMINC16494Kommu Harijana SudershanamMIND9520
195725PargiGENJagan Mohan ReddyMIND10696S. VenkatswamyMINC6174

Last Updated on December 17, 2013




Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Andhra High Court

G.Rama Mohan Rao & Anr vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 7 March, 2017

THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI Writ Petition Nos.18205 of 2014 and batch 07-03-2017 G.Rama Mohan Rao & Anr..Petitioners The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricutural, Marketing and Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Anr.. Respondents

Counsel for petitioners: Sri M. Surendra Rao, Sri G. Vidyasagar and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Sri J. Sudheer, Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Sri C. Subodh, Smt. M. Shalini, Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah, Sri Dadi Radha Krishna, Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, Sri G. Maloji Rao, Sri Karri Suryanarayana, Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Sri Karri Murali Krishna, Sri M.Ramgopal Rao, Sri N.Pramod, Sri G.Vijaya Babu, Sri K.Chidambaram, Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, Mrs. K. Jayasree, Sri K. Vijayakumar Reddy, Sri D.Linga Rao, Sri K.S. Murthy, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, Smt. K. Udaya Sri, Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Sri P.C. Aravinda Babu, Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, Sri M. Subba Reddy, Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Sri Shaik Shakeel Ahmad, Sri M. Karthik Pavan Kumar, Sri K. Rammohan Mahadeva, Sri M.V. Raja Raam, Sri A. Rajendra Babu, Sri K.R. Srinivas and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy.

Counsel for respondents: Learned Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, Sri K. Satya Srinivasa Rao, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri Nadakuditi Ravi Shankar, Sri B. Prakasam, Sri B. Thimothi, Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Sri K. Ramanuja Chari, Smt. A. Anasuya, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Mrs.A.Jayanthi, Sri T.Venkta Raju, Sri Uma Shankar Lokanadham, Sri Kalamata R.Babu, Sri K.Santhosh, Sri P. Roy Reddy, Sri Y. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar, Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Sri M. Papa Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageswara Rao, Smt. Jagarlamudi Koteswari Devi, Sri N. Siva Reddy, Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Sri Akula Anil Srinivas, Sri P. Subash, Sri J.S. Raju, Sri Gangula Ashok Kumar Reddy, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, Sri K.R. Raman, Sri K.C. Venkata Reddy, Smt. M. Siva Jyothi and Sri K. Indra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel.

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

? Citations:

1) (1976) 2 SCC 502 2) AIR 1964 SC 1585 3) (1965) 1 SCR 829 4) (1997) 6 SCC 12 5) (1976) 4 SCC 750 6) (1998) 3 SCC 495 7) (1979) 3 SCC 165 8) AIR 1961 SC 276 9) AIR 1967 SC 1910 10) (1985) 3 SCC 398 11) (2016) 3 SCC 788 12) (2013) 5 SCC 1 13) (2008) 5 SCC 1 14) (1998) 3 SCC 495 15) (1989) 1 SCC 321 16) (1970) 1 SCC 108 17) (1977) 1 SCC 554 18) (2010) 13 SCC 586 19) AIR 1967 SC 1889 20) AIR 1956 SC 285 21) (1975) 1 SCC 264 22) (1984) 1 SCC 551 23) (1985) 1 SCC 345 24) (2004) 6 SCC 186 25) 1951 AC 737 26) (1970) 2 ALL.E.R 294 27) 1971 (1) WLR 1062 28) 1972 (2) WLR 537 29) AIR 1968 SC 647 30) 1901 AC 495 31) (2000) 4 SCC 640 32) (1981) 1 SCC 722 33) (2009) 5 SCC 694 34) (2011) 12 SCC 695 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 791 35) (2002) 5 SCC 111 36) (1961) 2 SCR 931 : AIR 1961 SC 564 37) (2016) 10 SCC 77 38) (2008) 11 SCC 10 39) (1977) 4 SCC 441 40) (2003) 5 SCC 163 41) (1989) 3 SCC 448 42) (2014) 6 SCC 415 43) (1919) A.C. 533 44) (1988) 2 SCC 293 45) AIR 1962 SC 159 46) 1987 Supp SCC 350 47) (1976) 1 SCC 925 48) (1991) 1 SCC 86 49) (1981) 4 SCC 173 50) AIR 1967 SC 944 51) (2013) 16 SCC 82 52) AIR 1986 SC 1370 53) 1953 2 K.B. 113 54) 1958 SCR 533 = AIR 1957 SC 912 55) (2000) 7 SCC 372 56) AIR 1976 SC 263 57) (1976) 2 SCC 895, = AIR 1975 SC 2190 58) (1961) 2 SCR 679 = AIR 1961 SC 751 59) (2010) 13 SCC 98 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 774 60) AIR 1952 SC 181 61) AIR 1965 SC 895 62) (1976(2) SCC 953 63) AIR 1980 SC 303 64) (2003) 3 SCC 433 65) (2003) 2 SCC 111 66) AIR 2004 SC 2036 67) (2009) 6 SCC 735 68) AIR 1962 SC 113 69) (2007) 3 SCC 184 70) (2006) 3 SCC 643 71) (2016) 6 SCC 635 72) AIR 1959 Bombay 363 (2) 73) ILR (1970) 2 Delhi 167 74) (2000) 7 SCC 339 75) (1981) 1 SCC 449 76) AIR 1964 SC 1486 77) (1950) KB 18 78) 1969(1) SCC 765 79) AIR 1999 SC 1734 80) (1970) 1 SCC 248 81) (1982) 1 SCC 125 82) (1981) 2 SCC 66 83) (1970) 1 SCC 67 84) (1981) 3 SCC 431 85) (1997) 5 SCC 170 86) (1997) 5 SCC 171 87) (1998) 5 SCC 91 88) (2003) 9 SCC 193 89) AIR 1953 SC 58 90) (1971) 1 SCC 85 91) AIR 1955 SC 830 92) 1963 AC 557 93) (1966) 1 QB 878 94) (2002) 3 SCC 533 95) (2011) 1 SCC 640 96) (2007) 8 SCC 418 97) 320 US 591, 602 (1944) 98) (1996) 5 SCC 268 99) (1980) 3 SCC 97 100) (2002) 2 SCC 333 101) 2004(2) ALD 599 (DB) 102) AIR 1998 SC 1703 103) (2000) 10 SCC 664 104) (1991) 3 SCC 11 105) (2011) 5 SCC 305 106) AIR 1969 SC 118 107) (1974) 1 SCC 19 108) AIR 1981 SC 561 109) (1999) 3 SCC 653 110) 1993 Supp (2) SCC 592 111) AIR 1985 SC 551 112) (2004) 1 SCC 592 113) (2013) 7 SCC 595 114) (1973) 1 SCC 461 115) (1960) 1 SCR 348 : AIR 1959 SC 1279 116) AIR 1965 SC 1567 117) 1985 Supp SCC 432 118) (1992) 1 SCC 489 119) (1999) 7 SCC 298 120) (2004) 4 SCC 714 121) (1985) 3 SCC 169 122) 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 123) (2003) 7 SCC 546 124) (1995) 6 SCC 749 125) (1994) 4 SCC 448 126) 1995 Supp (2) SCC 731 127) 2008(5) ALT 115 (F.B)

THE HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition Nos.18205, 21660, 40864 of 2014; 10993, 15286, 16870, 17215, 17254, 17349, 18395, 18505, 18660, 18813, 19030, 19256, 20279, 22432, 22866, 24885, 24914, 24924, 25192, 25350, 26781, 27048, 27312, 27330, 33371, 39193, 41047, 41348, 41432, 42400 of 2015; 720, 727, 740, 796, 846, 918, 2292, 2828, 5071, 10476, 10620, 10670, 11120, 12468, 14344, 14668, 14679, 14750. 14916, 15204, 15361, 15518, 15548, 15717, 15741, 15893, 16313, 16453, 16774, 16821, 16834, 16925, 17422, 17426, 17489, 17845, 17847, 17852, 17865, 17876, 18057, 18138, 18525, 18539, 18627, 18640, 18706, 18736, 18757, 18789, 18791, 18792, 18798, 18815, 18817, 18945, 18993, 19161, 19162, 19172, 19239, 19246, 19320, 19983, 19990, 19993, 20038, 20045, 20060, 20077, 20228, 20275, 20379, 20381, 20452, 20495, 20814, 20815, 20836, 20845, 20849, 20876, 20898, 20989, 21127, 21132, 21135, 21287, 21315, 21437, 21584, 21638, 21675, 21678, 21757, 21808, 21826, 21833, 21836, 21847, 21875, 21890, 22054, 22112, 22174, 22206, 22282, 22449, 22505, 22544, 22587, 22590, 22634, 22891, 23376, 23380, 23503, 23505, 23515, 23540, 23602, 23684, 23780, 23808, 23861, 24029, 24062, 24122, 24142, 24210, 24213, 24363, 24661, 24703, 24722, 24754, 24786, 24916, 25192 and 25201 of 2016.

COMMON ORDER: (per Honble the Acting Chief Justice Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) In these batch of Writ Petitions the petitioners, who are all employees of Corporations/Companies/Societies/Institutions, listed in the IX and X Schedule of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 (the 2014 Central Act for short), have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 18.06.2016 keeping in abeyance the earlier orders issued by them, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees of public sector undertakings under the administrative control of the Government from 58 to 60 years, till formulation of a policy regarding extension of the age of superannuation of such employees, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners seek a declaration from this Court that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 60 years.

The corporations/companies/societies, of which the petitioners are employees of, are categorized as (a) Corporations/ Companies listed under the IX schedule; (b) Societies/Cooperative Societies under the IX schedule; (c) other institutions in the IX schedule; (d) societies listed in the X schedule; and (e) other institutions listed in the X schedule.

(a) Companies and corporations listed under the IX schedule are:-

(1) A.P. Seeds Development Corporation (entry 1 of the IX schedule).

(2) AP State Agro Industries Development Corporation (entry 2 of the IX schedule) (3) AP State Warehousing Corporation (entry 3 of the IX schedule). (4) AP State Civil Supplies Corporation (entry 4 of the IX schedule). (5) AP TRANSCO/GENCO (entry 6 of the IX schedule). (6) New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of AP (entry 8 of the IX schedule).

(7) AP Forest Development Corporation (entry 9 of the IX schedule) (8) AP State Police Housing Corporation (entry 12 of the IX schedule).

(9) AP State Housing Corporation (entry 13 of the IX schedule). (10) AP Mineral Development Corporation (entry 16 of the IX schedule).

(11) AP Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (entry 17 of the IX schedule).

(12) AP State Finance Corporation (entry 19 of the IX schedule). (13) AP Handicrafts Development Corporation (entry 21 of the IX schedule).

(14) AP Trade Promotion Corporation (entry 22 of the IX schedule). (15) AP State Irrigation Development Corporation (entry 23 of the IX schedule).

(16) AP State Minority Welfare Finance Corporation (entry 24 of the IX schedule).

(17) AP State Beverages Corporation (entry 25 of the IX schedule). (18) AP Education And Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (entry 77 of the IX schedule).

(b) Societies/Co-operative Societies listed under the IX schedule are:-

(19) AP Co-Op Oil Seeds Growers Federation (entry 45 of the IX schedule).

(20) AP Women Co-Op Finance Corporation (entry 59 of the IX schedule).

(21) AP Defirmity Abled Senior Citizen Assistance Corporation (entry 60 of the IX schedule).

(22) AP Society for Training and Employment Promotion (entry 66 of the IX schedule).

(23) AP Girijan Co-Op Corporation (entry 75 of the IX schedule). (24) AP Schedule Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation (entry 78 of the IX schedule).

(25) AP Backward Classes Co-Operative Finance Corporation (entry 79 of the IX schedule).

(iii) Other Institutions listed under the IX schedule are:-

(26) AP Khadi Village Industries Board (entry 51 of the IX schedule).

(iv) Societies listed under the X Schedule are:

(27) AP State Co-Op. Union Limited (entry 1 of the X schedule). (28) Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (entry 37 of the X schedule).

(29) AP Residential Education Institution Society (entry 41 of the X schedule).

(30) AP Social Welfare Residential Education Institution Society (entry 42 of the X schedule).

(31) AP Backward Classes Residential Education Institution Society (entry 48 of the X schedule).

(32)AP Tribal Welfare Residential Education Institution Society.

(v) Other Institutions listed under the X Schedule are:-

(33) Board of Intermediate Education (entry 19 of the X schedule). (34) Telangana Social Welfare Board (entry 92 of the X schedule). (35) AP Consumer Redressal Commission Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (36) NTR University of Health Sciences AP University of Health Sciences Act,1971.

It is wholly unnecessary for us, while considering the rival submissions of the Learned Senior Counsel and the Learned Counsel on either side, to burden this judgment with the facts and events leading upto the filing of each of these Writ Petitions. It would suffice, instead, to note the claim of the Employees Federation, representing the employees in most, if not all, the respondent-organisations, that, under the Articles of Association/ bye-laws of these legal entities, the Board of Directors/managing Committees are vested with the power to frame, and have been framing, rules/regulations regarding service conditions of employees working in their organisation; the Boards have been following Government norms, in framing service conditions of these employees, from time to time; there are specific provisions, in the Articles of Association of the PSUs, that any action or decision taken by the Directors, in the exercise of the powers vested in them under the Articles of Association, Memorandum of Association and the Companies Act shall prevail, and the shareholders in their general meeting cannot annul such decision of the Directors; Section 291 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 may be referred to in this regard; though the Government, as the shareholder of the respective PSUs, is vested with the power to issue any directive, under the Articles of Association, to the company in regard to any matter and, in such a case, the Directors of the company are bound to implement such directives, the Government is not entitled to invoke the said Article, in the Articles of Association, to alter, modify or annul the resolution of the Board of Directors proposing enhancement of the age of superannuation from (58) to (60) years to its employees; having delegated powers to the Board of Directors, under the Articles of Association, to frame service conditions for the employees working in the respective companies, the Government, as a shareholder, is not entitled to encroach and divest the Board of Directors of their power to frame service conditions of their employees; and, as the employees working in the PSUs are not its employees, the Government is not entitled to curtail the benefit, or deny the benefit, to employees working in the PSUs while acting as the shareholder of the company.

In his counter-affidavit dated 23.07.2016, the Special Secretary to the Government, Finance Department stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh enhanced the age of superannuation of Government employees from 58 years to 60 years; the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (the 1984 Act for short), was amended by the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (the 2014 State Act for short); G.O.Ms. No.147 dated 30.06.2016 issued by the Finance Department applies only to Government employees; Employees associations of certain public sector undertakings, and institutions listed in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the 2014 Central Act, sought extension of the provisions of the 2014 State Act to them also; the Finance Department issued certain guidelines on the applicability of the enhanced age of superannuation to employees of urban and rural local bodies, state public enterprises, autonomous institutions and other entities, and to the teaching and non-teaching staff of aided educational institutions and universities; and, in order to make the position clear, certain clarifications were issued vide Circular Memo. dated 02.07.2014.

The clarifications sought for, and the remarks furnished by the Finance Department thereto, are referred to in a tabular form in the counter-affidavit. In so far as employees of public sector undertakings are concerned, the clarification is to the effect that, as these employees have not as yet been apportioned between the two successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, they cannot be treated, as at present, as employees of the entities belonging to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh; and the enhanced age of superannuation cannot be made applicable mutatis mutandis to employees of public enterprises of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh.

The counter-affidavit refers to receipt of proposals from the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, through the Water Resources Department, for extension of the enhanced age of superannuation to their employees, and notes that the Finance Department had concurred with the proposals subject to the following conditions: (a) these orders are applicable to employees who are allocated to the Andhra Pradesh unit by specific orders; (b) these orders shall come into effect from the date of final allocation of employees i.e., 02.06.2014 on condition that the period they were out of employment shall be treated as extra-ordinary leave or any other eligible leave; and (c) necessary amendment shall be carried out to the regulations/bye- laws; and, consequently, orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 23.09.2015.

It is further stated that, when several proposals and requests were received from various Corporations without final allocation of employees and without approved demerger plans from various Corporations and Public Sector Undertakings, the Public Enterprises Department of the Government of A.P. had issued Memo. dated 26.11.2015 advising the Secretariat Departments, including the Water Resources Department, to keep the orders, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees of Public Sector Undertakings from 58 to 60 years, if any issued, in abeyance till orders, formulating the policy regarding extension of the age of superannuation, of employees of Public Sector Undertakings in the State, were issued; pursuant thereto, guidelines were issued vide Circular Memo dated 07.12.2015 directing the managements of Public Sector Undertakings and Institutions, included in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the 2014 Central Act, to take up the following process prior to submitting proposals to the Government for any change in the age of superannuation: (a) approval of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Telangana for demerger of the institution following the due procedure; (b) reconstitution of the Board in accordance with the established procedure; (c) final allocation of employees between institutions of both the States; (d) the reconstituted Board passing a resolution, with due justification for enhancement of the age of superannuation, and sending the proposal to the Government for approval; and (e) suitable amendment of the relevant provisions in the bye-laws.

It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that orders were issued by the Water Resources Department, vide G.O.Ms. No.2 dated 07.01.2016, keeping the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No.101 dated 23.09.2015 in abeyance; in the wake of re-organisation of the State, the existing boards/managements of these institutions are expected to only limit themselves to taking decisions on continuing day-to-day administration, and to facilitate division/ demerger; propriety demanded that the present Boards did not to venture into major policy decisions; with mounting litigation, orders were issued in G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 18.06.2016 that the enhanced age of superannuation cannot be made applicable to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, and institutions listed in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the 2014 Central Act, until the matter of division of assets and liabilities of institutions between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was settled, and allotment of employees between the two States was finalised for these public sector undertakings/institutions; the Government would be in a position to take a policy decision on the matter only after such a process is completed in all respects; orders issued, if any, by any department or public sector undertakings/institutions were to be kept in abeyance with immediate effect; the said G.O. is self-explanatory; the stand of the Government is that employees of the State Public Sector Undertakings, and other autonomous bodies, listed in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the 2014 Central Act, are not government employees; unless the rules governing the service conditions of these employees are suitably amended, the enhanced age of superannuation does not automatically apply; unless the demerger of these institutions is completed with the approval of both the Governments, and employees of these organisations are finally allocated, the age of superannuation cannot be enhanced for the reason that only one State has enhanced the age of superannuation; the division of employees is so far ad-hoc, and is not supported by any guidelines or approval; as allocation of assets and liabilities is still not complete, the financial viability of the separated entity cannot be assessed at this juncture; and there is every possibility of a huge financial burden falling on the State Government.

Elaborate oral and written submissions were put forth by Sri M. Surendra Rao, Sri G. Vidyasagar and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Sri J. Sudheer, Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, Sri C. Subodh, Smt. M. Shalini, Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah, Sri Dadi Radha Krishna, Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, Sri G. Maloji Rao, Sri Karri Suryanarayana, Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Sri Karri Murali Krishna, Sri M.Ramgopal Rao, Sri N.Pramod, Sri G.Vijaya Babu, Sri K.Chidambaram, Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, Mrs. K. Jayasree, Sri K. Vijayakumar Reddy, Sri D.Linga Rao, Sri K.S. Murthy, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, Smt. K. Udaya Sri, Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, Sri P.C. Aravinda Babu, Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, Sri M. Subba Reddy, Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, Sri Shaik Shakeel Ahmad, Sri M. Karthik Pavan Kumar, Sri K. Rammohan Mahadeva, Sri M.V. Raja Raam, Sri A. Rajendra Babu, Sri K.R. Srinivas and Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners.

The Learned Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri Soma Harinath Reddy, Sri K. Satya Srinivasa Rao, Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri Nadakuditi Ravi Shankar, Sri B. Prakasam, Sri B. Thimothi, Sri Banda Prasada Rao, Sri K. Ramanuja Chari, Smt. A. Anasuya, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Mrs.A.Jayanthi, Sri T.Venkta Raju, Sri Uma Shankar Lokanadham, Sri Kalamata R.Babu, Sri K. Santhosh, Sri P. Roy Reddy, Sri Y. Sudhakar Reddy, Sri A. Yadava Reddy, Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar, Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Sri M. Papa Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageswara Rao, Smt. Jagarlamudi Koteswari Devi, Sri N. Siva Reddy, Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Sri Akula Anil Srinivas, Sri P. Subash, Sri J.S. Raju, Sri Gangula Ashok Kumar Reddy, Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, Sri K.R. Raman, Sri K.C. Venkata Reddy, Smt. M. Siva Jyothi and Sri K. Indra Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel put forth their submissions on behalf of the respondent-Companies/Corporations/Societies. It is convenient to examine the elaborate submissions, urged by Learned Senior Counsel and Learned Counsel on either side, under different heads.

I. ARE EMPLOYEES OF STATE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS COVERED BY THE A.P. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (REGULATION OF AGE OF SUPERANNUATION) ACT?

On the questions whether all the petitioners, who are working in State owned corporations/companies/Societies are entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years in terms of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (the 2014 State Act for short), and whether they all fall under the category of "persons holding public posts and in connections with the affairs of the State", it is submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that Companies/Corporations/Societies, whose employees have now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, discharge public services and duties which, otherwise, the State would have performed; the age of superannuation of all employees in the State of AP is governed by the A.P. Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (the 1984 Act for short) as amended by the 2014 State Act; the State Government made the 1984 Act in the exercise of its powers under Entry 42 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution which deals with State Public Services; the power to legislate under the Entry is wider than the power to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; all the petitioners fall within the ambit of Section 1(2)(i) of the 1984 Act since all the Corporations, where they are employed, are State owned corporations; the definition of a Government employee in Section 2(3) of the 1984 Act is an inclusive definition; the very fact that Section 1(2)(iv) specifies officers/employees, whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, would mean that Section 1(2)(i) applies to persons apart from those mentioned in clauses (ii) to (iv); employees of State Government public sector undertakings fall within the ambit of Section 1(2)(i) of the 1984 Act; a joint reading of Section 2(3) read with Section 1(2)(i) of the 1984 Act makes it clear that employees of these Corporations are Government employees; after bifurcation, the State of A.P amended the 1984 Act on 27.06.2014 by the 2014 State Act; employees of these public sector undertakings, like other employees of the Government who hold posts in connection with the affairs of the State, are governed by the provisions of the 1984 Act as amended by the 2014 State Act; if statutory Corporations/State Public Sector undertakings are held to be excluded from the ambit of Section 1(2)(i), it would then render clause (iv) redundant as all persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State would fall within the ambit of clause (iv) of Section 1(2); the petitioners, all of whom are Government employees, are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years irrespective of whether or not these Corporations have incorporated the said age into their regulations; both the 1984 and the 2014 State Acts have over- riding effect; the meaning given earlier to the words government employee, either under the Companies Act or under the Societies Act or any other enactment, confining/restricting such meaning, cannot be applied to the provisions of these Acts; both these Acts apply to persons employed by the State and those employed in State owned Corporations/Companies etc; employees of these Corporations have been distributed between the States of A.P. and Telangana, and the requirement of Section 82 has been complied with; an executive order, in the form of GOMS No. 112, cannot override plenary legislation i.e. the 1984 Act; the Government cannot discriminate between employees of the PSUs, and its employees, regarding service conditions since all PSUs are fully owned by the State, and are all instrumentalities of the State; what is to be done by the State is being done through another juristic person created, owned and controlled by the Government; there is no difference between employees of the State and employees of PSUs regarding service conditions; whatever reasons prompted the State to enhance the age of retirement of its employees, should be applied in enhancing the age of retirement of employees of PSUs also; the Government cannot adopt different yardsticks in prescribing the age of retirement, more beneficial to its employees and less beneficial to employees of PSUs; G.O. Ms.No 147 was issued by the Government giving instructions regarding applicability of the 2014 State Act; statutory Corporations have adopted, and have all the while been following the G.O's and instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time; as they have adopted the 1984 Act, the subsequent amendments brought to the said Act should be automatically applied; the provisions of the 2014 State Act, irrespective of their adoption, are deemed to be applicable; and employees of Corporations are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years.

On the other hand, the Learned Advocate General for the State of A.P. would submit that Section 2 (1) of the 1984 Act, as amended by the 2014 State Act, is inapplicable to employees of Schedule IX and X Institutions; the petitioners do not fit into the description of Government employees; they are a separate and distinct class, governed by separate service regulations; their retirement is guided by the respective service regulations of the entity; as on date, all of them are to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years; Law/Rules, framed in the exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 309 of the Constitution of India, are not applicable to employees of PSUs; in none of the cases have the petitioners been able to demonstrate that their service regulations are amended duly following the prescribed procedure; moreover, in the absence of validly constituted Boards, the Adhoc Boards, created by the State Government for the purpose of managing service delivery, are incompetent to amend the service regulations/rules; these Boards are created pursuant to the Memo dated 29.5.2014, prior to the Appointed Day, for managing the service delivery of these Schedule IX and X Institutions; the respondent-Corporations are not Government Departments; the identity of a government company remains distinct from the Government; a government company is not identified with the State Government, but has been placed under a special system of control and is conferred certain privileges by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 619 and 620 of the Companies Act, 1956; merely because the entire share-capital is held by the Government would not make the incorporated company the Government; employees of government companies are not civil servants, and are not entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311 of the Constitution; employees of government companies have no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary, or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of their enhanced age of retirement, should be met by the Government; the mere fact that a corporate body or a cooperative society answers the definition of a "State" does not make it the "State Government", nor will employees of such a body become holders of civil posts or employees of the State Government; even if the Corporation/Company/Society is held to be a "State", for the purposes of Article 12, it is an independent juristic entity and cannot be identified with, or treated as, the State Government; all Schedule IX and X Institutions are separate and distinct entities covered by the provisions of the 2014 Central Act; and employees of these entities cannot equate themselves with regular State Government employees.

It is contended, on behalf of some of the petitioners, that public sector companies, registered under the Companies Act, are different from the State Government; the State Government cannot act as if it is the owner of the company or as an employer of the employees of the company; and the company is the master of its affairs, and also the employer in so far as its employees are concerned.

Entry 42 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution confers power on the State legislature to make laws in relation to State Public Services, apart from the power conferred on the State Government to make rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is primarily the State legislature in whom power to make laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts, in connection with the affairs of the Union or the State, is vested. Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule confers power, without any fetter, to legislate for State public services. (N. Lakshmana Rao v. State of Karnataka ; Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab ). An Entry, in the Lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, cannot be read in a narrow or restricted sense, and each general word should be held to extend to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be said to be comprehended in it (Navin- chandra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay city ; R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ; I.N.Saksena v. State of M.P ), and the words in Entries in the three Lists should be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning subject to the rider that the most liberal construction should be put upon it to have effect in their widest amplitude. (R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.4; Navinchandra Mafatlal3). The scope of Entry 41 of List II must, therefore, be held to be wider than matters regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of public servants under the proviso to Article 309. (I.N. Saksena5). While the legislative field, indicated in Article 309, is the same as is indicated in Entry 41 of List II of the VII Schedule, the proviso to Article 309, which gives power to the Governor to make Service Rules, is only a transitional provision as the power under the proviso can be exercised only so long as the legislature does not make a law whereby recruitment to public posts, as also other conditions of service relating to that post, are laid down. (A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka ).

It is the exclusive power of the States to deal with their services either in the exercise of their legislative functions or rule- making powers or, in the absence of any law or rules, in the exercise of their executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, which is co-extensive with their legislative powers to regulate recruitment and conditions of service. (Swaran Lata v. Union of India ). There is nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the Executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. (Swaran Lata7; T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem ; and Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan ).

The 1984 Act is an Act, made by the A.P. State Legislature, to regulate the age of superannuation of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 1(2) thereof stipulates that the 1984 Act shall apply to (i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State; (ii) officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of the House of the State Legislature; and (iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India immediately before the commencement of the 1984 Act.

Section 2(2) of the 1984 Act defines Government to mean the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Section 2(3) defines Government employee to include all categories of officers and employees referred to in Section 1(2). Section 2(6) defines local authority to mean, in relation to a local area comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Corporation, the concerned Municipal Corporation; and, in relation to any other local area, the concerned Municipal Council, Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samithi or Gram Panchayat. Section 3 prescribes the age of superannuation and, under sub-section (1) thereof, every Government employee, not being a workman and not belonging to the Last Grade Service, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. Section 3(1A), introduced by Act 26 of 1998, stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), every member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. Section 4 stipulates that the provisions of the 1984 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or order of the Government for the time being in force.

The 1984 Act was amended by the 2014 State Act which came into force with effect from 02.06.2014, and Section 2(1) of the 1984 Act was substituted. Section 2(1), after its substitution, stipulates that every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. Section 3A was inserted to the 2014 State Act and, under sub-section (1) thereof, a Government employee belonging to the state cadre/multi-zonal cadre and who, by general or specific order issued by the Government of India under Section 77(1) of the 2014 Central Act is serving provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana shall, on his final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh, be deemed to be continuously serving in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

While Section 3A of the 2014 State Act specifically refers to Government employees belonging to the state cadre/multi-zonal cadre, employees of wholly owned State Government Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/Societies do not belong either to the state cadre or to the multi-zonal cadre in terms of the Presidential Order made under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Section 3A has, therefore, no application to these employees. Clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act relates to every other officer or employee i.e. officers or employees who do not fall within the ambit of clauses (i) to (iii), but whose service conditions are regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

The contention, urged on behalf of the petitioners, is that, since clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act relates to every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, clause (i) of Section 1(2), which relates to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, can only mean officers or employees appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, but whose conditions of service are not regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary, therefore, to examine who are persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, and whether such persons would include employees of wholly owned State Government Companies/Corporations/Societies also.

(a) CAN EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS BE SAID TO BE PERSONS APPOINTED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND POSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE STATE:

While the Legislature enact laws, and lay down the mode in which such policies are to be carried out and the object of the legislation achieved, the task of efficiently and effectively implementing these policies and enactments, rests with the civil services. Government servants are paid from the public exchequer to which everyone contributes either by way of direct or indirect taxes. Those who are paid by the public, and are charged with public administration for public good must therefore, in their turn, bring to the discharge of their duties a sense of responsibility. The efficiency of public administration does not depend only upon the top echelons of these services. It depends as much upon all the other members of such services, even on those in the most subordinate posts. (Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel ).

Civil servants, i.e. persons who are members of a civil service of the Union of India or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or who hold a civil post under the Union or a State, occupy in law a special position. (Tulsiram Patel10). The expression public servant, can be reasonably understood, with reference to the office and the duties performed in connection therewith, to be of a public character. (CBI v. Ramesh Gelli ). A government servant is, subject to the special provisions, governed by the law of master and servant. (State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok ). In contracts as those of service, the tendency in modern times is to withdraw the matter more and more from the domain of contract into that of status, in so far as the law itself has seen fit to attach to this relationship compulsory incidents. (Salmond and Williams on Contracts; P. Venugopal v. Union of India ).

Provisions, with respect to services under the Union and the States, are made in Part XIV of the Constitution of India. This Part consists of two Chapters, Chapter I dealing with services and Chapter II dealing with Public Service Commissions for the Union and the States. The provisions, with respect to civil services in the Government of India Act, 1935, were taken as the basis for Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution. Article 309 provides for recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State, Article 310 for the tenure of office of such persons, and Article 311 for the mode of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. The functions of the civil service in India, under Article 309 of the Constitution, are performed not only by persons employed in a civil capacity, but by persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State by authorities appointed under or specified in Acts made under Article 309 or rules made under such Acts or under the proviso to that Article. (Tulsiram Patel10).

The rule-making function under the proviso to Article 309 is a legislative function. Since Article 309 has to operate subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, whether it is an Act made by the State Legislature which lays down the conditions of service, or it is a rule made by the Governor under the proviso to that Article, it should be in conformity with the other provisions of the Constitution. (A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka ). Article 309 makes no provision for recruitment or conditions of service of government servants but confers power upon the appropriate Legislature to make laws, and upon the Governor of a State to make rules in respect of these matters. (Tulsiram Patel10). On the plain language of Article 309, any rule framed thereunder should be confined to recruitment and conditions of service of persons mentioned therein (State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath ).

The expression conditions of service means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even beyond it, in matters like pension etc. (Kailash Nath15; Tulsiram Patel10; State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh ; I.N. Subba Reddy v. Andhra University ). What falls within the purview of the term conditions of service may be classified as salary or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings. (Kailash Nath15). Article 309 confers legislative power to provide conditions of service including prescription of the age of superannuation. (N. Lakshmana Rao1; P. Venugopal13).

The phrase Subject to the provisions of this Constitution which precedes and qualifies the power conferred by Article 309, is significantly different from the qualifying phrase in Article 310(1) which is except as expressly provided by this Constitution. (Tulsiram Patel10). A clear distinction has been drawn by the framers of our Constitution between service under the States and services in institutions which are creations of the Constitution itself. Article 315 of the Constitution, which commands that there shall be a Public Service Commission, is not linked with the All India Services contemplated under Article 312 of the Constitution to which, in fact, the selections are to be made by the Commission. (Salil Sabhlok12; Mehar Singh Saini, In re ).

While the origin of government service is contractual, a government servant acquires a status on his appointment to a post or office. His rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both the parties, but by statute or rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The legal relationship is one of status. Status is a condition for membership of a group, the powers and duties of which are exclusively determined by law. The hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law. The emolument of the government servant, and his terms of service, are governed by the statute or rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without his consent. (P. Venugopal13; Tulsiram Patel10; Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India ).

It is not in dispute that the service conditions of officers and employees of wholly owned State Government Public Sector undertakings, (Corporations, Companies or Societies), are not governed by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such employees do not, therefore, fall within the ambit of clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act. As they do not, admittedly, fall under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 1(2), it is only if they fall under clause (i) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act, and are held to be persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, can they be held to be Government employees as defined in Section 2(3) of the 1984 Act, and it is only then would they be entitled to claim the benefit of the age of superannuation of 60 years under Section 3 of the 2014 State Act.

The words public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State are expressions used in Article 309 of the Constitution of India which stipulates that, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. The word service in the proviso to Article 309 is the public service referred to in Article 309 itself. The expression posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State is also to be found in the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The phrase persons serving under the Government of a State refers to such persons in respect of whom the administrative control is vested in the respective executive Governments functioning in the name of the President or of the Governor. The salaries of these persons are paid out of State funds. The salaries, allowances and pension payable to such officers and employees are chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund of a State. The item relating to such administrative expenses forms part of the annual financial statement to be presented to the State Legislative Assembly, and estimates thereof form the subject-matter of discussion in the Legislature. Such persons are taken to hold posts in connection with the affairs of the State and to be members of the civil service of the State. (Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court ).

While the service conditions of persons, appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State are, ordinarily, governed by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, clause (iv) of Section 1(2) ensures that even those persons, apart from the persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State as referred to in clause (i), are also brought within the ambit of the 1984 Act provided their services are regulated by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. All officers and employees, falling within the ambit of clause (i) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act, would fall within the ambit of clause (iv) also. Clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act ensures that even those persons, who do not fall within the ambit of clause (i), are also brought within the ambit of the 1984 Act provided their service conditions are governed by the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Employees of Public Sector Undertakings are neither persons holding posts in connection with the affairs of the State nor are they members of the civil service of the State. As they are also not governed by the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, they do not fall within the ambit of clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 1(2), and are therefore not governed by the provisions of the 1984 Act as amended by the 2014 State Act.

Let us now examine the judgments relied on behalf of the petitioners. In Divya Prakash v. Kultar Chand Rana , the first respondent was elected to the Himachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. An election petition was filed by the appellant, a voter in the Constituency, contending that, at the time of filing the nominations, the first respondent was holding an office of profit under the Government of Himachal Pradesh; and, as such, was disqualified under Article 191 (1)(a) of the Constitution. The observations of the Supreme Court, in Divya Prakash21, were made in the context of whether or not the first respondent held an office of profit under the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and it was held that the test for deciding whether a person held an office of profit was whether he could sue for, or otherwise claim, the scale of pay fixed by the resolution of the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education; in the light of his order of appointment, such a claim would not be upheld; and the first respondent was not holding an office of profit at the time when he filed his nomination or when he was elected.

In Biharilal Dobray v. Roshn Lal Dobray , a similar question whether an assistant teacher in a Basic Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education, constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the State Legislative Assembly, under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution, arose for consideration. Following its earlier judgment in Divya Prakash21, the Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education was not an authority which was truly independent of the Government; every employee of the Board was, in fact, holding his office under the Government; subordination of the Board and its employees to the Government was writ large on the face of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, and the rules made thereunder; and the person who contested the election held an office of profit under the State Government, and his nomination was rightly rejected.

The observations of the Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgments, were made while examining the question whether a person, who stood for elections to the State Legislative Assembly, held an office of profit resulting in his being disqualified for election under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid judgments cannot be read out of context to hold that employees of all Public Sector Undertakings are employees of the State Government. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclids theorems nor as provisions of a statute, and that too taken out of their context. (Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab ; CCE v. Alnoori Tobacco Products ; London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton ; Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. ; Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham British Railways Board v. Herrington ). The decision of a Court is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Mistra Hegde ; Quinn v. Leathem ).

In State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah among the questions which arose consideration before the Supreme Court, was whether the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, on its express language, covered the Judicial Service of Bihar State. The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the appeals subject to certain modifications of the directions issued by the High Court. In his dissenting opinion, Justice R.P. Sethi observed that Public service meant anything done for the service of the public in any part of the country in relation to the affairs of the Union or the State; it was the opposite of private service; persons connected with the discharge of public duties, relating to any of the organs of the State i.e. Executive, Judiciary and Legislature including the armed forces, would be termed as public servants engaged in the service of the public; public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State would refer to all services and posts under the Union and the State, and include every commissioned officer in the military, naval or air force, every Judge, every officer of a court of justice, a member of the panchayat, every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any court of justice; every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement; every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey assessment or contract on behalf of the Government; every officer who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election; every person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; or such person in the pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central or State Act, and the like.

Justice R.P. Sethi further opined that Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code may be an indicator to refer to the public services and posts intended to be covered or contemplated under Article 309 of the Constitution; Judicial Service, therefore, cannot be termed not to be a service within the meaning of Article 309; the appointment of a District Judge under Article 233 was appointment to public services within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution; though the Constitutional scheme envisaged an independent Judiciary not being under the Executive, but such an independent Judiciary could not be termed to be a creation of a distinct service in the State not being subject to the law-making sovereign powers of the Legislature; Article 309 is itself subject to the other provisions of the Constitution which guarantee independence of the Judiciary; the power of appointment of District Judges is vested in the Governor subject to the conditions imposed under Article 233 of the Constitution; and it followed that, subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, the appropriate Legislature could regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of all persons appointed to public services including Judicial Services, and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State.

Reliance placed on the minority opinion in Bal Mukund Sah31, to contend that employees of Public Sector Undertakings are appointed to public services, is misplaced. Not only does a minority opinion not constitute a declaration of law by the Supreme Court binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, the aforesaid observations in the minority opinion were made while examining whether judicial service was a service within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution. Stray observations in a judgment, that too in a minority opinion, cannot be read out of context or be understood as a declaration of law binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

It is unnecessary for us, in the present writ proceedings, to examine whether or not the power to make laws under Entry 42 of List II of the VII Schedule would extend to employees of public sector undertakings, since we have already held that the 1984 Act, as amended by the 2014 State Act, does not relate to employees of public sector undertakings. It is only if the 1984 and the 2014 State Act are held applicable to employees of public sector undertakings, can it be held that they are entitled to continue in service till they reach the age of superannuation of 60 years. As employees of public sector undertakings are not persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, they are not governed by the provisions of the 1984 Act as amended by the 2014 State Act. While it is open to the Board of Directors/ Managing Committees of each of these Corporations/Companies/ Societies, in accordance with the provisions of the enactment by which they are governed and the Articles of Association/bye-laws which are applicable to them, to adopt the provisions of the 1984 Act and the 2014 State Act, and make them applicable to their employees by amending their rules and regulations, it is only thereafter can employees of these undertakings claim the right to continue in service upto the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.

(b) MERELY BECAUSE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE UNDER ARTICLE DOES NOT MAKE ITS EMPLOYEES GOVERNMENT SERVANTS:

While a Public Sector Undertaking is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own and carries on its functions on business principles with a certain amount of autonomy, behind the formal ownership is the deeply pervasive presence of the Government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation. Such a Corporation would, therefore, not be free from its basic obligation to obey the fundamental rights, and the Court must not allow enforcement of fundamental rights to be frustrated by taking the view that it is not the Government and, therefore, not subject to constitutional limitations. (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ). The mere fact that a Corporate body, or a Cooperative Society, answers the definition of State under Article 12 does not make it the State Government, nor will the employees of such a body become holders of civil posts or employees of the State Government. While such Corporations/Societies may answer the definition of a State, that does not mean that the State Government is liable to bear and pay the salaries of its employees, as it is an independent juristic entity, and cannot be identified with or treated as the State Government. (State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha ). While a Company/Corporation may be called an agency or an instrumentality of the Central/State Government for the limited purpose of labelling it a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a Corporation cannot also be held to be an agent of the Central/State Government under Section 182 of the Contract Act. (National Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad ; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology ).

Unlike Part III of the Constitution, service provisions in Part- XIV of the Constitution relate to recruitment, conditions and tenure of service of persons, citizens or otherwise, appointed to a Civil Service or to posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. The word State has a different connotation in Part III relating to Fundamental Rights. It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India, etc. The scope and ambit of the Service provisions are to a large extent distinct and different from the scope and ambit of the fundamental right, guaranteeing to all citizens, an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It would be wrong in principle to either cut down or expand the amplitude of a fundamental right by reference to provisions which have an altogether different scope and purpose. (Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of A.P., ). While Public Sector Undertakings are, no doubt, instrumentalities of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and are governed by Part-III of the Constitution of India, that does not make employees, of these corporate bodies, Government employees.

Corporate bodies are independent entities, and their employees cannot claim parity with employees of the State Government. The State Government has a master-servant relationship with the civil servants of the State, whilst it has no such direct or indirect nexus with employees of corporate bodies. The State Government may legitimately choose to extend different rights in terms of pay-scales and retiral benefits to civil servants. It may disagree to extend the same benefits to employees of corporate bodies. The State Government would be well within its right, to deny similar benefits to employees of corporate bodies, which are financially unviable, or if their activities have resulted in financial losses. When pay-scales are periodically reviewed for civil servants, they do not automatically become applicable to employees of corporate bodies, which are wholly financed by the Government, and similarly not even to employees of Government companies. Likewise, there cannot be parity with Government employees, in respect of allowances. So also, of retiral benefits. (State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood ).

Employees governed by the terms of a contract do not possess the status of government servants. Neither are they governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, nor do they enjoy the protection under Article 311. (UPSC v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup ; Roshan Lal Tandon19; Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam ). Employees of statutory bodies are governed by statutory rules, and do not enjoy the status of government servants. (Dr. Jamuna Kurup38). Employees of government companies are not civil servants. Such employees have no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government. Being employees of the Companies, it is the responsibility of the Companies concerned to pay them salary and, if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance pay scales, its employees cannot claim any legal right against, or seek a direction to, the State Government to meet the additional expenditure required to be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. (A.K. Bindal v. Union of India ; Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director ).

As employees of Public Sector Undertakings and Government servants constitute two different and distinct classes, neither do the conditions of service prescribed for government servants automatically apply to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, nor does the plea of discrimination, or of violation of Article 14, merit acceptance. The contention that the Government cannot apply different yardsticks is therefore not tenable. While several of these corporate bodies appear to have adopted the 1984 Act, they are required to also adopt the 2014 State Act, and amend the rules and bye-laws, governing the age of superannuation of its employees, accordingly. It is only if the rules, governing the age of superannuation, are amended as prescribed under the applicable bye-laws/Articles of association would the employees of these corporate bodies then be entitled to claim the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation.

II. DOES THE LETTER OF STATE GOVERNMENT DATED 01.09.1984, MAKING THE 1984 ACT APPLICABLE TO COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS, APPLY TO THE 2014 STATE ACT ALSO?

It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the State Government, vide letter dated 01.09.1984, had specified that the 1984 Act, and Ordinance No. 24 of 1984 which later became Act No. 3 of 1985, were Mutatis Mutandis applicable to employees and officers of public enterprises in the State; therefore, the 2014 State Act would also apply to State Public Sector Employees, more so in view of Section 2(f) r/w 100 of the 2014 Act; as held by the Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan v. C.P. Singh , an employee cannot be deprived of the benefits of the enhanced age of retirement on account of the amendments made in the Regulations subsequent to the States Reorganization; and, consequent to the reorganization of the State, employees of State Public Enterprises in the State of Andhra Pradesh are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.

The Companies/Corporations/Societies, listed in the IX Schedule to the 2014 Central Act, are distinct legal entities and are neither departments, nor form part, of the State Government. The Board of Directors/Managing Committees of each of these legal entities govern each of these entities subject only to the provisions of the Companies Act, the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association in so far as Companies/Corporations are concerned, and the bye-laws and the provisions of the Act whereunder the Societies were constituted in so far as Societies are concerned. The control exercised by the State Government, over such Companies/Societies, is as its shareholder, and in terms of the relevant enactments and the Articles of Association of each of these Companies, and the bye-laws of each of these Societies. Neither the 1984 Act, nor the Rules made by the Government for its employees under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, automatically apply to these Corporations/Companies/ Societies.

The letter dated 01.09.1984 was addressed by the Director General, Public Enterprises Management Board and Ex-Officio Secretary to the Government, to the Vice-Chairmen and Managing Directors of all Public Sector Enterprises, informing them that, in Ordinance No.24 of 1984 dated 23.08.1984, the age of retirement of Government employees was raised from 55 years to 58 years w.e.f. 23.08.1984; the above orders were mutatis-mutandis applicable to employees of all Public Enterprises in the State; and necessary action may be taken in the matter.

Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege is a maxim meaning Contemporaneous exposition is the best and strongest in the law. (Black L. Dict.; Broom.). Where the words of an instrument are ambiguous, the Court may call in aid acts done under it as a clue to the intention. (Watcham v. Attorney General of the East Africa Protectorate ). Contemporanea expositio is a well settled principle or doctrine which applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes (Baktawar Singh Bal Kishan v. Union of India ), but not in interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. (Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra ; J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India ). The understanding of the Executive regarding the interpretation of a statutory provision does not bind the Court. Even if persons who dealt with the statute understood its provisions in another sense, such mistaken construction of the statute does not bind the Court so as to prevent it from giving it its true construction. (Workmen v. National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., ; Punjab Traders v. State of Punjab ). The rule of construction, by reference to contemporanea exposition, must give way where the language of the Statute is plain and unambiguous. (K.P. Varghese v. ITO ).

The aforesaid letter dated 01.09.1984 does not even constitute executive instructions under Article 154 read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and is merely in the nature of internal correspondence between the parties thereto, and confers no right on employees of Public Sector Undertakings. Reliance placed thereupon, to contend that the petitioners are governed by the 1984 Act, as amended by the 2014 State Act, does not therefore merit acceptance. Even otherwise this letter dated 01.09.1984 was not intended to govern the age of superannuation of employees of public sector Companies/Corporations/Societies for all times to come. The said letter, whereby the 1984 Act was sought to be made applicable to Corporations/Companies/ Societies, specifies the age of superannuation as 58 years. It is not in dispute that the age of superannuation of employees of these IX Schedule Companies, Corporations and Societies is 58 years. The petitioners grievance is that the age of superannuation should be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the provisions of the 2014 State Act. The letter dated 01.09.1984, issued nearly 20 years prior to the amendment of the 1984 Act by the 2014 State Act, cannot be construed as requiring all public sector Companies/Corporations/Societies to automatically enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years.

Section 2(a) of the 2014 Central Act defines appointed day to mean the day which the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint. The Central Government, by its notification dated 04.03.2014, specified 02.06.2014 as the appointed day. Section 2(f) of the 2014 Central Act is an inclusive definition of law, and brings within its fold any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification having the force of law before the appointed day i.e., 02.06.2014 either in the whole or any part of the existing State of A.P. Section 100 of the 2014 Central Act relates to the territorial extent of laws and stipulates that the provisions of Part-II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial reference in such law to the State of Andhra Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Andhra Pradesh before the appointed day.

A law, as defined in Section 2(f) of the 2014 Central Act which was in force in the State of A.P. before 02.06.2014, would, in view of Section 100 thereof, continue to apply in both the successor States until either the competent authority or the competent legislature of the successor States otherwise provide. In view of Section 100 read with Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the 2014 Act, the 1984 Act, which was in force in the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, would extend to both the successor States. In the light of Section 2(f) read with Section 100 of the 2014 Central Act, employees allotted to both the Successor States, continued to be governed by the laws in force, relating to their service conditions, in the erstwhile State of A.P. before 02.06.2014, till the law was amended subsequently by the concerned successor State. As noted hereinabove, the 1984 Act prescribes the age of superannuation of Government employees as 58 years. Consequently, in view of Section 100 of the 2014 Central Act, the age of superannuation of Government employees, in both the successor States, remained 58 years immediately after 02.06.2014. The 2014 State Act, amending the 1984 Act, was published in the A.P. Gazette dated 27.06.2014. The said Act does not, therefore, have any application to the State of Telangana or to persons other than Government employees within the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. It is only after the 2014 State Act amending the 1984 Act, was made by the A.P. State Legislature, which came into force with effect from 02.06.2014, did the 1984 Act, as it stood prior to its amendment, not apply, in terms of Section 100 of the 2014 Central Act, to the government employees of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh.

The State of Ajmer was a Centrally administered Part-C State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.11.1956. The first respondent, in C.P. Singh42, was absorbed into the services of the State of Rajasthan from that date. His services, at the time of re-organisation, came to be governed by the 1951 Rules and, in terms thereof, the first respondent was made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 55 years. Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957 conferred on employees the right to exercise their option and to elect to be governed, as regards leave and pension, by the rules applicable to them immediately before the appointed day i.e. the Central Civil Service Regulations in the place of the 1951 Rules. The first respondent exercised his option to be governed by the Central Civil Service Regulations. Before the Supreme Court, the State of Rajasthan contended that the option exercised by the first respondent, under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957, should be confined only to leave and pension, and not to the age of retirement.

It is in this context that the Supreme Court held that the option exercised by the 1st respondent, to be governed by the Rules applicable to employees immediately before the appointed day, did not contain any restriction that the option shall be to such rules excluding the one providing for the age of retirement, or only as they stood on a particular day; the clause immediately before the appointed day, occurring after the clause rules applicable to him, clearly related to the word applicable, and it could not be read to mean the rules as existing before the appointed day; the elected rules could not be restricted only to the provisions existing in the past on the appointed day so as to exclude any amendment made in such rules during the service of the employee concerned; the 1951 Rules were applicable to employees who opted for the same, along with the amendments made in future; and there was no rationality in the view that the other rules applicable before the appointed day shall apply but without any amendments, even when such amendments were made during the service period of the employee opting for the same. The Supreme Court observed that the first respondent could not be subsequently deprived of the benefits of the enhanced age of superannuation accruing to him on account of the amendments in the Regulations made in the year 1962 when the first respondent was still in service; and, after the amendment in the Regulations, his retirement age legally became 58 years.

The judgment in C.P. Singh42 has no application to the facts of the cases on hand. The question which arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the 1984 Act, and the amendment made thereto by the 2014 State Act, are applicable to employees of Public Sector Undertakings. No such question arose for consideration in C.P. Singh42. It is only if the concerned public sector undertakings, had amended their rules/bye-laws making the provisions of the 2014 State Act applicable to its employees, would the age of retirement of employees of these legal entities have stood extended to 60 years. It is also not as if employees of these PSUs were asked to exercise their option, and they had chosen to be governed by the 2014 State Act. Even otherwise neither the 1984 Act nor the 2014 State Act provide for the exercise of options by employees of PSUs. Reliance placed by the petitioners on C.P. Singh42 is, therefore, misplaced. III. HAVE THE IX SCHEDULE ENTITIES AND ITS EMPLOYEES BEEN BIFURCATED BETWEEN BOTH THE SUCCESSOR STATES?

It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that, pursuant to the 2014 Central Act, the Companies and Corporations, specified in the IX Schedule thereto, have been re-constituted into separate Corporations/Societies/bodies in the successor States; employees have also been allocated to the successor State corporations/Societies/bodies on the basis of amicably determined modalities; the A.P. State Public Enterprises comprise of employees catering exclusively to the needs of the State of A.P, although the assets and liabilities of Schedule IX Corporations may not have been finally divided among the two successor States; the State Corporations, operating exclusively for the State of A.P have also resolved to enhance the retirement age to 60 years; the said decision is not being implemented only in view of G.O.Ms. No. 112 dated 18.06.2016 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh; division of the assets and liabilities of IX Schedule entities, as contemplated under the 2014 Central Act, has no relevance to enhancement of the age of superannuation of employees of PSUs; Sections 53 and 68 of the 2014 Central Act provide for the manner in which these assets and liabilities should be distributed; the present issue is not with reference to the distribution of assets and liabilities of these corporations, but only regarding the age of superannuation of employees working in the units located in State of A.P; and G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 18.06.2016 is not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 53, 68 and 82 of the Act.

On the other hand the Learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh would submit that the word 'headquarters', used in Section 53, is not defined in the 2014 Central Act and a clarification has been sought, by the State of Andhra Pradesh, from the Union of India, and the same is awaited; the exercise stipulated, in Sections 53, 68, 71 and 82, is not yet complete; none of the Petitioners have either asserted or established that the requirements of the aforesaid Sections have been complied and completed in a process known to law; Circular dated 29.05.2014 was issued by the Government in consonance with Section 68 and 82 of the 2014 Central Act making it clear that, prior to the appointed day, the arrangements contemplated therein was only for managing the service delivery in the successor States, till the procedure contemplated under the 2014 Central Act is followed and completed; in terms of Section 82, the IX Schedule entities should wait for guidelines to be announced by the Central Government; however, in the meantime, provisional division and allocation of staff may be made as per the operational division organogram, and any other guidelines issued by the State Government in this regard; the main intention was to ensure that service delivery is not affected in any manner; all this goes to show that the requirement of demerger/reconstitution of the Boards of IX Schedule entities is an exercise which would have legal sanction only after the respective Governments of both the States reach a consensus in this regard and, on failure thereof, to be resolved by the Union of India; and the exercise of exploring the possibility of resolving pending issues, in connection with the division of assets and liabilities and employees of Schedule IX institutions between the two States, was entrusted by the Government of AP vide G.0.Rt. No.145 dated 04.07.2016, and the Government of Telangana vide memo dated 20.7.2016, to the Principal Secretaries to the Government (SR) GAD of both the States, along with a nodal officer to assist them in this regard.

The submission of the Learned Advocate-General, that the Corporations/Companies/Societies of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh are still jointly owned by the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, is based on Section 53(2) of the 2014 Central Act. The manner in which the division of assets of State undertakings shall take place is stipulated in Section 53 of the Act. Under sub-section (1) thereof, the assets and liabilities relating to any commercial or industrial undertaking of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, where such undertaking or part thereof is exclusively located in, or its operations are confined to, a local area, shall pass to the State in which that area is included on the appointed date, irrespective of the location of its headquarters. Under the proviso thereto, where the operation of such undertaking becomes inter-State, by virtue of the provisions of Part-II, the assets and liabilities of (a) the operational units of the undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on location basis; and (b) the headquarters of such undertaking shall be apportioned between the two successor States on the population ratio. Under Section 53(2), upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, such assets and liabilities shall be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the successor States.

As stipulated under Section 53(1), in cases where the location or the operations of a commercial or industrial State undertaking is confined exclusively within an area falling within either one of the two successor States, then these assets and liabilities shall pass on to such State within whose limits the area is included. The assets and liabilities of such undertakings would, in its entirety, be allotted to the successor State where it is either located or its operations are confined, even if its headquarters is located in the other State.

The proviso to Section 53(1) is attracted where the operations of the commercial or industrial State undertakings, because of the division of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh into two successor States, has become an inter-State undertaking i.e where the commercial or industrial State undertaking was carrying on operations before 02.06.2014 in areas which, after 02.06.2014, fall within both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The proviso stipulates that the operational units of such undertakings shall be apportioned between the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on location basis. The effect of proviso (a) to Section 53(1) is that the assets and liabilities of the operational units of such State undertaking shall pass on to the successor State where the operational units are located. The word apportionment means the act of distribution by allotment. The assets and liabilities of an undertaking, which has become inter-State by virtue of the provisions of Part-II of the 2014 Central Act, are to be distributed and allotted to the two successor States in terms of clauses (a) and

(b) of the proviso to Section 53(1).

As the proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2014 Central Act requires the assets and liabilities of those undertakings, which have become inter-state by virtue of the provisions of Part-II of the 2014 Central Act, to be apportioned (other than the headquarters) on the basis of its location in either of the States, it is evident that Parliament intended to allocate assets of the IX Schedule public sector undertakings on the basis of its location so that both the successor States could, on its own accord, decide, as it considered appropriate, the manner in which the assets allotted to it should be utilised.

Proviso (b) of Section 53(1) relates to the headquarters of such of those undertakings which are governed by the provisions of Section 53(1) i.e only such of those undertakings whose area of operations fall within both the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The word headquarters, used both in Section 53(1) and its proviso, though not defined in the Act, can only mean the office that serves as the administrative centre of the undertaking. In the case of such undertakings, the assets and liabilities of its headquarters are required to be apportioned between the two successor States on the basis of the population ratio.

While Section 53(1) and its proviso deal with the manner of apportionment of commercial or industrial undertakings of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, its actual transfer, consequent upon apportionment of the assets and liabilities, is stipulated in Section 53(2) which enables these assets either to be transferred in physical form on mutual agreement or by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by both the successor States. Section 53(2) also uses the word transfer which means to cause change of ownership. The consequences of apportionment, (allotment of the assets and liabilities to the two States) is, as provided in Section 53(2), a change in the ownership of the assets and liabilities of the Corporations, Companies and Societies listed in the IX Schedule of the 2014 Central Act. The change in ownership of the assets and liabilities is required to be made, in favour of the successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, either (i) in physical form on mutual agreement or (ii) by making payment or adjustment through any other mode as may be agreed to by the successor States. While apportionment (allotment) of assets to both the successor States is statutorily prescribed, the change in ownership of the allotted assets and liabilities is to be caused by mutual agreement between the two successor States.

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *