IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 449 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/04/2007 in WP NO : 8851 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 V.V.Krishna Rao S/o.Ramaiah R/o.Quarter No.E2, A.colony, KTPS, Paloncha Khammam District 2 Ch.Srinivasulu S/o.Chinna Bommaiah R/o.Quarter No.E627, AP Genco Housing colony Old Paloncha, Khammam District 3 R.Chandra Sekhar S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Quarter No.BE,128 B colony,. KTPS Paloncha Khammam District 4 R.Chandra Sekhar S/o.Narsaiah R/o.Quarter No.BE,128 B colony,. KTPS Paloncha Khammam District ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 AP TRANSCO, Rep.by its Chairmna & Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad 2 The General Manager, (Personnel), AP TRANSCO Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad 3 The AP Power General Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyuth soudha Hyderabad 4 The Chief General Manager/Administration, AP Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vidyuth soudha,Hyderabad 5 The Chief Engineer, O&M,KTPS, V-Stage, Paloncha khammam District 6 The Superintending Engineer, O&M, KTPS,V-Stage Paloncha, Khammam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned advocates. The appellants who are the original petitioners are the employees of the erstwhile APSEB. The petitioners were working in the Engineering branch of APSEB. The aforestated company has now been bifurcated into different companies and as per the scheme of the erstwhile company, the appellants have opted to be allocated to APTRANSCO. For administrative reasons, the appellants have been sent on deputation to the another company, namely APGENCO. At present, the appellants are working in the APGENCO. Looking to the administrative exigencies, the respondents-employer want to repatriate the appellants and, therefore, necessary orders have been passed for repatriation, but the appellants want to continue to work on deputation. In our opinion, the appellants have no right to continue to work on deputation elsewhere and it is always for the employer to decide whether the employee can be continued on deputation or not. In the petition, which has been filed by the appellants, the question is with regard to combined seniority list of persons working in the Engineering cadre. By way of an interlocutory order, the learned single Judge has directed that during the pendency of the petition, promotions to the higher cadre may be given to the appellants and similarly situated persons subject to the final result of the petition, but not on the basis of the combined seniority list, which was in existence in the past when APSEB was in existence. The appellants have been aggrieved by the aforestated interim relief. In our opinion, the interim order passed by the learned single Judge is just and proper because the combined seniority list cannot be enforced at this juncture for the reason that the erstwhile APSEB has already been bifurcated into different companies and therefore, there will be different seniority lists for different employees working in different companies. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned single Judge is just and it does not call for any interference. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Sri Damoder Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has made a submission at this juncture that at present APGENCO, where the appellants are working on deputation, requires the services of the persons like the appellants and, therefore, they may be continued on deputation. Sri Chidambaram, learned advocate appearing for the respondents- company has however submitted that during the pendency of this appeal an order has already been passed relieving the appellants so that they can be repatriated. It will however, be open to the appellants to make a representation to the concerned company so that if, infact, the services of the appellants are required by the APGENCO, they may be continued for some time. Subject to the above observation, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th April, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies