Sri Krishna Commission TRS Full Report

To

Shri Vinod K. Duggal

Member SecretaryCommittee for Consultations on the Situation in Andhra PradeshGovernment of IndiaRoom No.248, Vigyan Bhavan AnnexeMoulana Azad RoadNew Delhi 110011

Dear Shri Duggal ji,

Kindly find enclosed detailed notes regarding the five and a half decade

long demand and struggle of the people of Telangana for the formation of

their own State. It is in response to the public notice issued by the

Committee inviting views and suggestions on the issues involved.

Our views and suggestions are presented in four volumes.They are:

Volume – I Consists of Historical Perspective, Income and Expenditure, Education, The Capital City, Judiciary, Language and culture, FAQs and Answers;

Volume – II Deals with Irrigation;

Volume – III Explains the Employment scenario; and

Volume – IV Concerns the situation regarding the Power Sector.

I am making this submission on behalf of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi

(TRS). The Notes are self explanatory. I hope they will receive the due

attention of the Committee. It may not be out of place to bring to the notice

of the Committee that the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has been

championing the cause of Telangana for the last one decade.

A Conditional Merger:

I would like to bring to the kind notice of the Committee that the demand of

the people of Telangana for a separate state is not a new development. It

was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to

be raised even thereafter. The reason for the reluctance of people for the

merger of Telangana with Andhra then was the fear of exploitation, neglect

and injustice in the enlarged state of Andhra Pradesh. And the reason for

their resistance now to continue in the existing set up is the actual

experience of exploitation, neglect and injustice.

The merger of Telangana with Andhra took place against the wishes of the

people of the region and contrary to a categorical recommendation of the

States Reorganisation Commission, besides the reluctance of the Prime

Minister of the time Jawaharlal Nehru.

The merger was the result of manipulative politics. It was, however, not

unconditional, nor was it considered eternal. It was facilitated by a number

of solemn promises made and constitutional safeguards given to the

people of Telangana as a protective umbrella against the possible

exploitation. These promises were made a number of times, but none of

them was ever honoured. In the process, Telangana became a victim of

broken promises.

Promises Broken:

The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair

play given to the people of Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra

Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the State was born, by

the very same “Gentlemen” who were signatories to the agreement.

The All Party Accord of January 1969 arrived at a meeting of the leaders

of all the political parties in the State, convened by the then Chief Minister

Brahmananda Reddy, was shelved in less than six months time.

The Eight Point Formula and the Five Point Formula announced by the

Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi in 1969, were not even given a

fair trial.

The historic verdict of the Supreme Court of India validating the Mulki

Rules was got annulled by the Parliament, succumbing to the pressure of

anti Telangana lobby of Andhra -- something unheard of in a democratic

polity!

The Six Point Formula, a diluted form of safeguards, was foisted on the

people as an alternative. Even this formula has been, and continues to be,

violated with impunity, robbing the people of Telangana of whatever little

was left in the name of safeguards.

The root cause for the failure of all these exercises was that, they were

attempts to treat only the symptoms and not the malady. Consequently, the

exploitation of the region and its people continued -- and still continues –

unabated, under the patronage of Andhra political leadership. In this

process the so called concept of Telugu Brotherhood has become

irrelevant, placing the people of Telangana in an extremely unenviable

position.

Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development,

marginalized in the political process and administrative setup,

belittled on the social, cultural and linguistic fronts, the natives are

virtually reduced to the status of second-rate citizens in their own

homeland.

Multiple Dimensions of the Issue:

It is to be realized that the demand for Telangana State is not a mere

political slogan; it has an economic angle; it has socio-cultural and linguistic

dimensions; it is blended with a feeling of self respect and the desire for

self rule. The continuous subjugation of the people of this region in every

sphere of their lives has turned their hazy fears at the time of the merger

into strong emotions and sentiments.

The plight of the people of Telangana in their own homeland is manifold.

They are narrated briefly hereunder:

i. The natural and financial resources of the region are plundered and

diverted for the development of the other regions. They include river

waters, coal, mineral wealth and revenue income of Telangana.

Consequently, this region is lagging behind the other regions in the

realm of economic development;

ii. There is a deepening crisis in the Agricultural sector causing ever

increasing suicides of farmers;

iii. Artisan class is in distress. Suicides of weavers and village

craftsmen are increasing year by year;

iv. The distress in the rural areas is causing unabated migration of

labour, abandoning their houses and families;

v. The longest stretch of flow of the Krishna River is in the

Mahboobnagar District. Yet the district is converted almost into a

desert;

vi. The largest masonry dam of the country, Nagarjuna Sagar, is in

Nalgonda District. But the people of the district do not get even

drinking water free from fluoride. As a result, several lakhs of people,

besides animals, have become, and continue to become, victims of

fluorosis – crippled and disabled for the whole life;

vii. Dalits of this region do not get the benefit of a variety welfare

schemes commensurate with the ratio of their population vis-à-vis the

population of Dalits in the other region;

viii. The condition of Tribals in the agency areas of the region is

miserable. A large number of them perish every year because of

seasonal diseases, in the absence of even minimum medical facilities

in those areas. The abject poverty of Tribals is such that they cannot

even afford to bring up their children. Consequently, infant sale by the

Tribals is becoming more and more rampant. The percentage of

population of Tribals is more in Telangana than in the other regions of

the State. As the reservations and incentives meant for them are on

the basis of percentage of their population in the entire State, their

quota in Telangana gets reduced. Tribals constitute about 12% of

total population in the Telangana region, but State’s average for

reservations to Tribals in employment and Educational institutions is

only 6%.

ix. The Muslim minority of the region has lost its preeminence which it

enjoyed in the past. It is a totally neglected section of the people in

matters of education, employment, economic development,

participation in the polity and language and culture. Low literacy rate

among the Muslims is getting further compounded by an abnormally

high rate of dropouts at the school level. It is as high as 90% as

confessed by the Minister for Minority Welfare of the State. The

Muslim Community is made to suffer perennially with a feeling of

insecurity, neglect and deprivation.

x. On the industrial front quite a few major industries inherited from the

erstwhile Hyderabad State are either closed down or sold out. To

mention a few: the Azamjahi Mills in Warangal, the largest textile mill

of the times in Asia, has been closed down; the Nizam’s Sugar

Factory in Bodhan, the largest Sugar mill of the times in Asia, has

been sold out to Andhra investors at a throw away price; the Sirsilk

Factory in Sirpur, Spinning Mills of Antargaon, DBR Mills, Allwyn

Factory, Republic Forge, Glass Factory have been abandoned. The

Fertiliser Factory at Ramagundem and IDPL in Hyderabad have also

been liquidated. The level of employment in the Singareni Collieries is

being pruned year after year.

The industrial development that has taken place in and around the

capital city has not benefited the Telangana in any way. The land,

water and power and other infrastructure facilities, made available to

these industries belong entirely to Telangana; yet the migrants from

the other regions are given more than 95% of the jobs. No major

industry worth its name has been set up in any of the districts of the

Telangana region as compared to the establishment of several

industries in Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Kakinada, Nellore,

Tirupathi, Kadapa and Kurnool in the other regions.

xi. On the political front, the leadership of Telangana is completely

marginalized. It is not allowed to grow, and even if it does, is not

allowed to sustain itself. Even the stalwarts like PV Narasimha Rao

and M Chenna Reddy could not survive as chief ministers for more

than a few months. It is reflected in the tenures of the three chief

ministers from Telangana -- PV Narasimha Rao, M Chenna Reddy

and T Anjaiah. In the 54 year long history of the State, all of them put

together held that position hardly for six years, that too in four

installments. About the stature of the present day political leadership

of Telangana, irrespective of the parties, the less said, the better.

xii. The socio-cultural identity of Telangana, its traditions, customs,

dialect and idiom are always heckled at, hurting the self respect of the

people. The electronic and print media and the cinema industry have

been playing a significant role in belittling the people of Telangana

and their identity.

Deprivations of legitimate share in the fruits of development,

marginalization in the political process and humiliation on socio-cultural

front have reduced the people of Telangana to being second rate citizens

in their own homeland. They have to literally beg for their rightful shares

whether it is regarding development or polity. These problems can be

addressed only when the people of the region are liberated from the

present exploitative set up and have power to shape their own destinies,

i.e., self rule.

A Vertical Division:

The Committee must be aware that in the wake of ongoing movement,

especially after 9th December 2009, all the sections of the society are

vertically divided region-wise. Ministers are not in a position to work in

unison. Members of Parliament, State Legislature or local bodies are

unable to sit together. The bureaucracy also is a divided lot. The gulf

between the people of the two regions is widened and has become

unbridgeable. Inter regional mobility of people; including the people’s

representatives has, become hazardous.

It is needless to underscore that the unity between two regions of the State

can never be a unilateral concept. It can happen only with mutual

confidence, respect, willingness and bilateral consent. It can never be

imposed unilaterally by force on the unwilling party. If it is forced, it will

have far reaching consequences.

An Inescapable Necessity:

The remedy, and the only one, therefore, lies in bifurcation of the

State of Andhra Pradesh and the restoration of status quo ante that

existed before 1st November 1956. The sooner it is done the better!

With Warm Regards,

Yours sincerely,

(K. Chandrasekhar Rao) President

DEMAND FOR TELANGANA STATE

Genesis, Spread and Continuance

A Historical Perspective

The people of Telangana are once again restive, reiterating their demand for a separate state. The demand of the people of this region for a separate state is not a new development. It was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter.

The reason for the opposition of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra (metamorphosed to Andhra Pradesh) was fear of neglect, injustice and exploitation in the enlarged state. It had manifested itself several times, including the agitation of 1952 when quite a few young lives were lost. It is referred to as the Non-Mulki Agitation. And the reason for their refusal to continue in the present state is the actual experience of becoming victims of neglect, injustice and exploitation. This resistance, intermittent yet sustained, took and continues to take several forms including the upheaval of 1968-69 when nearly four hundred people, mostly students, were killed in the reign of terror unleashed by the state government of the time.

It should be noted in this context that the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed not only ignoring the wishes of the people of Telangana but also against a categorical recommendation of the States reorganization Commission. Further, it was contrary to the expressed views of the tallest leader of the time, Jawaharlal Nehru, who ridiculed the demand for Visalandhra as an idea bearing a ‘taint of expansionist imperialism’. (Indian Express, 17 October, 1953). The forced merger of Telangana with Andhra to form the present state of Andhra Pradesh on 1st November 1956 was, therefore, an outcome of manipulative politics.

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) set up by the Government of India in early 50s to examine the question of reorganization of states of the country was not in favour of merging the Telangana region with the then Andhra state. After a very careful examination of the issues involved the SRC recommended:

.. It will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate state

which may be known as the Hyderabad state, with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by two-thirds majority the legislature of the residuary Hyderabad state expresses itself in favour of such unification.

(SRC Report: Para 386)

The Commission further recommended:

Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these interests will tend to bring the people closer to each other. If, however, our hopes for the development of the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the areas do not materialize and if public sentiment in Telangana crystallizes itself against the unification of the two states, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit.


The Commission came to this conclusion after a dispassionate assessment of feelings of the people of Telangana and the fears entertained by them. Elaborating the reasons for recommending statehood for the Telangana region the Commission observed:

i. One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal areas...The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately while Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising Andhras”. (SRC Report: Para 378)

And

ii. When plans for future development are taken into account, Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive

adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. ... Telangana, therefore, does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilization of the waters of the Krishna and the Godavari.


Further,

iii. The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison with Telangana, the existing Andhra state has a low per capita revenue. Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to be faced with financial embarrassment… Whatever the explanation may be … the result of the unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be Financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced. Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point of view, unification, it is contended, is not likely to confer any benefit on this area.

(SRC Report: para 376)

It is also necessary, in this context, to note that the SRC cautioned the nation against the dangers involved in reorganizing the Indian states solely on linguistic considerations. One of the rational criteria recommended by the Commission, while reorganizing the states, was:

…to reject the theory of ‘one language one state’ which is neither justified on grounds of linguistic homogeneity, because there can be more than one state speaking the same language without offending the linguistic principle, nor practicable, since different language groups, including the vast Hindi speaking population of the Indian Union, cannot always be consolidated to form distinct linguistic units”.

(SRC Report: para 163)

These categorical recommendations made by the States Reorganization Commission (SRC), elaborating the rationale underlying its conclusions, and a clearly expressed opinion of the tallest leader of the time – Jawaharlal Nehru – evidently reflected the hopes and aspirations of the

people of Telangana. Consequently, there was a strong wave of jubilation among the people of the region.

But, the political leadership of Andhra State could not digest it as it was longing for the formation of Visalandhra; it was almost crestfallen. The primary concern of Andhra leadership was to bail out the infant Andhra State from the deep troubles confronting it from the day one of its separation from the erstwhile composite State of Madras on 01-10-1953. Their eyes were, therefore, on the resource-rich Telangana without which it was impossible for the then Andhra State to sustain itself. The panic that pervaded the Andhra State could be gauged by the reactions and observations of several top-ranking political leaders of the Andhra State and the media, besides the opinions expressed by the Pradesh Congress Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and the deliberations of the Legislative Assembly of the Andhra State. A few of them (translated from Telugu) are reproduced hereunder:

I. Reactions on the Recommendations of the SRCAyyadevara Kaleswara Rao:

“If the formation of Visalandhra is postponed, it will never happen. It is dangerous to wait for six years. The desire for separate Telangana will be further strengthened, and then they will not agree for Visalandhra. It will be impossible to get two-thirds majority in the Assembly at that time.”

(Andhra Patrika: 02-11-1955)

Kasu Brahmananda Reddy:

“Creating separate Telangana state and then waiting for five years is not a good idea. The necessity of getting two-thirds majority in the assembly is incomprehensible. Why should we wait till the 1961 Elections are over?”


Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:

“If not now, Visalandhra can never be formed.”


Vavilala Gopalakrishnayya:

“If Visalandhra is not formed now, it might become impossible later.”


Kala Venkata Rao:

“If it is feared that the lands in Telangana will be usurped by Andhras, a law can be made to prevent that.”


Andhra State Congress Committee:

“People of Telangana need not be apprehensive about any troubles or losses if they join Visalandhra. There will not be any laxity in ensuring their development and progress.”


Comments made in Andhra Patrika:

“There is no answer to the question raised by the leaders of Telangana that if Telangana will not get any additional benefits by joining Visalandhra, why should it join at all?

Benefits to Andhra if Visalandhra is formed:

i) A ready-made, well-developed capital city;

ii) Advantages on social and cultural fronts;

iii) Development of transport and communication facilities; and,

iv) Development of irrigation projects in Krishna and Godavari basins by mobilizing resources from 20 districts of Visalandhra, instead of 8 districts of Andhra.” (Andhra Patrika: 04-11-1955)

Resolutions passed in the Andhra State Assembly:

On 25-11-1955, the then Chief Minister of erstwhile Andhra State, Bezawada Gopala Reddy, introduced a resolution in the State Assembly, which was unanimously approved. The summary of the resolution is as under:

- We deem it our special responsibility to develop the Telangana Region;

- We safeguard the rights of the region in the realms of employment and education proportionate to the population of the region

- We ensure to them a fair share in the fruits of development in all other spheres;

- All the resources that rightfully belong to the Telangana region will be utilized for the benefit of only the people of that region;

- We will be very generous towards them;

- The people of Telangana have not asked us for any of these assurances; and,

- All these assurances are given by all the political parties unanimously in the assembly.

II. Financial Problems of the Andhra State

Andhra Patrika:

The financial condition of the Andhra State is not at all satisfactory; nor is it likely to improve in future. There is no likelihood of paying salaries to the government employees by the end of March (1955).


There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at all possible to take up any new projects.


Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for developmental works; nor is there any likelihood of it even in the coming five years. Floating loans for developmental works has become impossible.


Bezawada Gopala Reddy:

“Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores.”

(Statement in Andhra Assembly: 15-09-1954)

“Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has become a difficult exercise.”



“Now we are dragging on with a deficit of 18 crore rupees. We are not in a position to pay salaries to the staff unless the central government comes to our rescue.”

(Statement is Andhra Assembly: 05-11-1953)

“Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and electricity facilities. Where can we fetch them from?”


“Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first year of its inception.”


M. Bhaktavatsalam (Finance Minister of Madras):

“The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible.”

(Statement is Madras Assembly: 31-01-1953)

III. Plight of Andhra State for a Capital City

Kadapa Koti Reddy:

“In the Andhra State there in no proper place to locate even district level offices; where is the question of finding place for locating offices for the capital city of the state?”


Tanguturi Prakasam:

“All our troubles will be resolved if we get Hyderabad. But how will we get it? We have to think as to how to work for it.”


Comments made in Andhra Patrika:

- Visakha: Where is a road on which two lorries can safely cross each other?

- Kakinada: Where are the buildings suitable in shape and number required for the capital city of the state?

- Rajahmundry: Doesn’t have the basic requirements.- Bezawada: There are more people than the available open place.

- Guntur: Just sufficient for the people there.

- Hyderabad : The one and the only way out.


Y. Suryanarayana Rao:

“We have already spent one crore rupees on the capital city, Kurnool. We are still spending. Even after spending so much, has Kurnool town got a shape suitable for a capital city? Absolutely not.”


“Andhra government employees are still in Madras as tenants. The officials are worried about providing residential accommodation to them. There is no hope of completing the construction of new buildings for the Secretariat. In addition, the government employees are worried about the educational facilities for their children in Kurnool.”



“People are enthusiastically waiting for moving to Hyderabad. Nobody is feeling the pinch of shifting the state’s capital from Kurnool.”

“We will assure the people of Telangana, if necessary, that their positions in the cabinet and jobs in the government will be protected.”

(Comment of Andhra Patrika on Sanjeeva Reddy’s statement: “This very gentleman threatened to remain in erstwhile Madras State itself if the capital city of Andhra State was not located in

Rayalaseema.”) (Andhra Patrika: 09-08-1954)

“We faced many problems in the last two years. There are no facilities for offices. If we have to wait for five more years as recommended by Fazal Ali, Andhra State will have to face innumerable problems.”


IV. Status of Industrial Development


“When compared to the other South Indian states, generation of electricity in Andhra is not adequate. Consequently, no industry worth its name could be established.”


Andhra Chamber of Commerce:

“In Andhra State, there are no industries at all.”


Bezawada Gopala Reddy:

“There is neither coal nor oil available in Andhra State. Electricity is very expensive.”


P.V.G.Raju:

“Telangana has registered industrial development. There is scope for further growth.”


This was the pathetic plight in which the Andhra leadership found itself when the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) categorically recommended to retain Telangana as a separate state. In all their utterances and out bursts, there was not even an iota of mention about common language, common culture or emotional unity of the Telugu people. All their anxiety was to extricate the then Andhra state from its miserable conditions. They were more interested in,

- getting a ready-made, well-developed capital city, free of cost; - having access to the surplus financial resources of Telangana to

meet the chronic deficit of Andhra State; and, - having control on the abundant natural resources of Telangana,

especially river waters, coal, mineral wealth, forest wealth and vast areas of cultivable land.

Thereby, the slogan of linguistic unity and cultural identity became and continues to remain as an empty rhetoric.

The entire scenario was aptly summed up by the then leading Telugu daily newspaper, Andhra Patrika, in its Editorial. The paper dispassionately reflected the fact that the resistance of the people of Telangana had a strong base of bitter experiences. Some excerpts:

“In Telangana, voices are raised against the formation of Visalandhra. These voices vibrated throughout the country during Non-Mulki Agitation. The behaviour of government employees, who went to the Telangana region in the immediate aftermath of Police Action, is responsible for this resistance of the people of Telangana. They still complain that those employees behaved like Mahmood Ghazni. The charge of the people of Telangana is that those employees have plundered their region, and their behaviour smacked of immorality and dishonesty. Therefore, the people of Telangana shudder at the very thought of Visalandhra. The political leaders have not done anything to alleviate the dissatisfaction, agony and anger of people of Telangana. Instead of soliciting the participation of the Telangana leadership, for the formation of Visalandhra, the Andhra leadership is imposing itself on the people of Telangana. The Andhra leaders have not realized, even now, that it is not possible to lure the people of Telangana in favour of Visalandhra by making Hyderabad the capital city of the new state.”


Yet, paradoxically, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed on 1st November 1956 as an outcome of manipulative politics.

The merger of Telangana with Andhra was, however, not unconditional. It was facilitated by a number of solemn promises made and constitutional safeguards given to the people of the region as a protective umbrella against the possible exploitation in the enlarged state. These promises were made not once. They were made umpteen times (and were also broken umpteen times). Nor the merger of Telangana with Andhra was considered eternal. Again, Jawaharlal Nehru himself compared it with a matrimonial alliance having provision for divorce, if the partners in the alliance cannot get on well. He said:

“An innocent girl (Telangana) is being married to a mischievous boy (Andhra). If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, they can take divorce.”

(The Deccan Chronicle: 06-03-1956)

As feared, nothing could prevent the successive governments from exploiting this region in every sphere – economic, political, administrative, cultural and linguistic.

Promises Broken:

The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1956, which was an assurance of fair play given to the people of Telangana to facilitate the formation of Andhra Pradesh, was scuttled the very same day on which the state was born, by the very same “Gentlemen” who were signatories to the agreement. The result was a massive revolt of the people of the region in 1968-69 demanding separation of Telangana from the State of Andhra Pradesh. It has come to be known as Jai Telangana Movement. The governments of the time in the State and at the Centre then woke up and tried (or pretended) to undo the damage done to the region.

The first step taken in that direction was the All Party Accord of January 1969 arrived at a meeting of the leaders of all the political parties in the State, convened by the then Chief Minister Brahmananda Reddy. But it was shelved in less than six months time.

Thereafter, a couple of packages were announced by the Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi, styled as Eight Point Formula and Five Point Formula. When the modalities of giving effect to these packages were being worked out, the Supreme Court of India gave a historic judgment validating, what were then known as, Mulki Rules. This judgment upheld the rule of reserving employment and educational opportunities available in Telangana exclusively for the residents of this region. But the political elite of Andhra region did not digest these corrective measures. The result was another agitation for a separate state, and this time for a separate Andhra state. It is referred to as Jai Andhra Movement. The leaders of Jai Andhra

Movement demanded either scrapping of all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana including the judgment of Supreme Court of India on the validity of Mulki Rules, or bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Andhra and Telangana states. It may not be out of place to recall that Venkaiah Naidu and Chandrababu Naidu, among others, were in the forefront of Jai Andhra Movement.

The Government of India yielded to the pressure of political might and money power of the majority region and nullified, by an act of Parliament, almost all the safeguards given to the people of Telangana including the annulment of judgment of the highest judicial authority of the country on Mulki Rules.

As an alternative, the so-called Six Point Formula, a diluted form of safeguards, was foisted on the people. Even this formula has been, and continues to be, violated with impunity, robbing the people of Telangana of whatever little was left in the name of safeguards.

All these exercises ultimately turned out to be futile as they were, at best, attempts to treat the symptoms rather than the malady. Consequently, the exploitation of the region and its people continued (and still continues) unabated under the patronage of political leadership, irrespective of the region it hailed from and irrespective of the party it belonged to. In this process the so called concept of Telugu Brotherhood has become irrelevant, placing the people of Telangana in an extremely unenviable position.

Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development, marginalized in the political process and administrative setup, belittled on the cultural and linguistic fronts they are virtually reduced to the status of second-rate citizens in their own homeland.

Therefore, the demand for a separate state continues to persist.

Telangana on UPA Agenda (2004)

When the UPA Government came to power at the national level after the general elections held in 2004, the following commitment was made in its Common Minimum Programme (CMP) regarding the formation of Telangana State:

The demand for formation of Telangana State to be considered at an appropriate time after consultations and consensus.

It had the approval of all the 13 constituent parties of the UPA Government, besides the four parties of the Left Front, supporting the Government from outside.

This item was mentioned by the President of India in his address to the joint session of Parliament held on 7th June 2004.

In order to initiate the follow-up action for arriving at consensus in this regard, a sub-committee of the UPA was constituted under the Chairmanship of Pranab Mukerjee. Consequently, Pranab Mukherjee wrote letters to all the political parties having representation in the Parliament, seeking their opinion on the formation of Telangana State. The responses received from different political parties clearly indicate an overwhelming support for the formation of Telangana State. A brief analysis is given hereunder:

Parties of the UPA Government:

Thirteen Parties constituted the UPA Government when it came to power. They were: Congress Party, RJD, DMK, NCP, PMK, JMM, TRS, Lok Janshakthi Party, MDMK, Republican Party of India, J&K People’s Democratic Party, Indian Union Muslim League and Kerala Congress. Out of them, 11 parties gave letters supporting the formation of Telangana State. The DMK extended its support orally, at the official meeting of the UPA held in August 2006. The Congress maintained that as the entire exercise was being carried on at its instance, a formal letter from its side was not necessary.

Friendly Parties:

There were 11 parties, besides one independent member, supporting the UPA Government from outside. They were: CPI(M), CPI, RSP, Forward Block, Janata Dal (S), Rashtriya Lok Dal, Sikkim Democratic Front, Samajwadi Party, BSP, SJP (R), and MIM. Out them, seven parties, besides one independent member, gave letters in support of Telangana State. They were: BSP, CPI, Forward Block, Rashtriya Lok Dal, Janata Dal(S), Sikkim Democratic Front, SJP(R). The stand taken by the Samajwadi Party is not known. The CPI (M) maintained that as a matter of principle, it was against the disintegration of linguistic states. But, it stated that it would not come in the way of formation of Telangana State. The Party made it abundantly clear at a meeting held on 22nd August 2006, with the representatives of Congress High Command.

Opposition Parties:

There were 14 parties in the opposition, besides 3 independents. They were: BJP, Shiv Sena, BJD., Janata Dal (U), Shiromani Akali Dal, TDP, AITC, AGP, National Conference, Indian Federal Democratic Party, Mizoram National Front, Nagaland People’s Front, Nati0nal Loktantrik Party and Bharatiya NavShakti Party. Out of them, 8 parties gave their consent supporting the formation of Telangana State. They were: BJP, TDP Shiromani Akali Dal, JD (U), Indian National Democratic Party, Mizoram National Front, Nagaland People’s Front and Bharatiya Navshakti Party. Further, Shiv Sena, BJD, AGP, National Conference, besides 3 independents, orally promised to support the proposal.

Others:

All the five former Prime Ministers responded favourably on this score. While V.P. Singh (now late) and I.K. Gujral wrote in their personal capacity, H .D. Deve Gouda and Chandra Shekhar (now late) wrote on behalf of the parties they represented. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in any case a party to the BJP’s commitment.

In addition, two more parties, having representation only in the Rajya Sabha, also extended their support. They were: Swatantra Bharat Paksha and Republican Party of India (G).

It is abundantly clear that the consensus arrived at, in favour of formation of Telangana State was not only very wide but was also overwhelming. If the UPA does not consider it as consensus, then what else could it be, and what more is it searching for?

The UPA Government did not honour its commitment made to the people of Telangana. Consequently, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) had to withdraw from the UPA.

2009 General Elections and Thereafter:

During the 2009 general elections the Congress Party did not forge any alliance with the TRS; but it was categorical in assuring the people of Telangana that it was committed to the formation of Telangana State and that it was the only national party capable of fulfilling the promise. Further, most of the parties in the State, i.e., TDP, BJP, CPI and Prajarajyam also were very categorical in supporting the proposal for the formation of Telangana State. The TRS in any way has only one point programme. The MIM, though silent, was not against the proposal. The CPI (M) maintained that it would not come in the way if the state was formed. This commitment made by almost all the political parties in the State made the people of Telangana to believe that the formation of Telangana State was a certainty, no matter which party or whichever combination of parties came to power. As a result, all these parties put together, swept the poll overwhelmingly. Therefore, the number of seats won by TRS ceased to be the sole criterion for the formation of the Telangana State. Yet, the governments in the State as well as the Centre tried to distort the electoral verdict. Under these circumstances K. Chandrasekhar Rao had to undertake a fast unto death from 29th November 2009, in the Gandhian and democratic mode of protest.

This mode of protest evoked a massive response from the nook and corner of Telangana region. In order to find a solution, the Government of India

asked the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to obtain the opinion of the Congress Legislature Party on the one hand and of all the political parties of the State on the other. The Chief Minister went through this exercise on 7th December 2009. The Congress Legislature Party unanimously resolved to authorise the Congress High Command in the matter and assured to abide by any decision taken by it. At the All Party Meeting convened the same day, all the major political parties promised to support the proposal for the formation of Telangana State and accused the Congress Party and the State Government for delaying the process. These parties include TDP, BJP, PRP, CPI, and naturally TRS. The MIM wanted a couple of days time to make its stand clear. The one member Loksatta Party was ambivalent. The CPI (M) reiterated its known stand. The minutes of these meetings were sent to the Government of India by the Chief Minister. There was also a prolonged debate in both the houses of Parliament underscoring the need and desirability of resolving the issue immediately.

In this backdrop, on 9th December 2009, the Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, announced, on behalf of Government of India, that the process of formation of Telangana State would be initiated and an appropriate resolution would be moved in the State Assembly. He also requested Chandrasekhar Rao to give up his fast unto death. Consequently, Rao gave up his fast amidst a wave of jubilation throughout Telangana.

But, surprisingly, and also shockingly, the leaders of Congress Party, TDP and PRP, hailing from the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions went back on their commitment made in the official meetings to support the formation of Telangana State. Some of them who are known for their vested interests in the real estate business and investments in the corporate sector instigated openly the students and the youth of the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to oppose the proposal for the formation of Telangana State. There was a large scale violence and massive destruction of property in those regions. The role played by even some of the members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Congress Party is well known. During that period there was total peace and tranquility in the Telangana region. In that scenario the Union Home Minister made another statement

on 23rd December 2009 that the Government of India would initiate a wide range of consultations before initiating the process of the formation of Telangana State. This had naturally created an impression that the issue of formation of Telangana State was once again put in the cold storage. And naturally there was another wave of protest and agitation.

In this context it is to be noted that in dealing with identical situations of unrest in two different regions of the State, the State Government and the law and order machinery behaved differently. It was very lenient and considerate in dealing with situation in the Andhra and Rayalaseema areas, while it has been, and continues to be, ruthless and repressive in dealing with an identical situation in the Telangana region. Even the commitment made by the Home Minister of India regarding the withdrawal of cases registered against the Telangana activists from 29th of November onwards is yet to be honoured by the State Government.

Under these circumstances, the latest clarification given by the Union Home Minister on 31st December 2009 has rekindled some hope among the people of Telangana. Yet, the people continue to have quite a few apprehensions. Therefore, it has become inevitable to complete the process of formation of Telangana State without any further loss of time.

Now it is abundantly clear that all the sections of society in the two regions are vertically divided. Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Members of Legislative Council, Ministers and Representatives of Local Bodies of all the parties are divided into two camps. It should be realised that the continuance of unified State of Andhra Pradesh has become untenable. It will be possible only if people of both the regions agree to it willingly. The unity cannot be imposed unilaterally.

What is to be understood is that the formation of Telangana State means restoration of status quo ante as it existed on 31st October 1956. The geographical boundaries and the territorial jurisdiction of the two regions were clearly demarcated and defined in the documents prepared at the time of merger of Telangana with Andhra. No new exercise is required on this score.

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

Telangana is a victim of plunder of its financial resources in the integrated

state of Andhra Pradesh.

On the eve of formation of Andhra Pradesh itself, Telangana was a surplus

area with regard to its Revenue Income and Expenditure, where as Andhra

was a deficit state.

Underscoring the dangers involved in the amalgamation of a surplus area

with a deficit state, the States’ Reorganization Commission recommended

continuance of Telangana as a separate state.

Yet, the amalgamation took place because of the manipulative politics; but

it was not unconditional.

One of the conditions of merger of Telangana with Andhra was not to allow

diversion of Telangana’s surplus income for the benefit of the other region.

But this condition, like several others, was observed more in its breach all

through.

Consequently, Telangana is lagging behind the other region in all spheres

of its development.

Whenever the question of formation of Telangana State comes up for

discussion – and also consideration – attempts are deliberately made to

create an impression that Telangana may not be a viable state. It is a

travesty of truth. The fact is that the financial viability of the very state of

Andhra Pradesh is dependent on the contribution of Telangana to the

State’s exchequer. It might sound incredible, yet it is an indisputable reality.

Therefore, a glance at the pages of the past history, juxtaposing it with the

present day realities, becomes necessary.

The Backdrop:

When the idea of forming the erstwhile Andhra state, segregating the

Andhra area from the then composite state of Madras, was mooted, quite a

few doubts were raised about the viability of that state. Dr. BR Ambedkar

himself observed:

Is the proposed Andhra State a viable State? Mr. Justice Wanchoo had very candidly admitted that the annual revenue deficit of the proposed Andhra State will be of the magnitude of Rs. 5 crores. Is it possible for the proposed Andhra state to reduce this gap either by increase of taxation or decrease in expenditure? The Andhras must face this question. Is the Centre going to take the responsibility of meeting this deficit? If so, will this responsibility be continued to the proposed Andhra state or will it be extended to all similar cases? These are questions which are to be considered.

Elaborating further the inadequacies of the proposed Andhra state and the

difficulties it was bound to face, Dr. Ambedkar said:

“Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it”.

Source: Writings and Speeches of Dr. BR Ambedkar (Vol)

Yet, Andhra State was formed on 1st October 1953 with Kurnool town as the

capital. On the eve of formation of the state a debate took place in the

Madras Assembly about, among other things, the financial position of the

proposed Andhra state. Participating in the debate, M. Bhaktavatsalam, the

then Finance Minister of the erstwhile composite state of Madras made the

following statement on the floor of the Assembly on 13 March 1953:

The sales tax receipts of the Andhra region are very negligible:

As expected and explicitly expressed, the financial troubles for the newly

formed Andhra state started right from the day of its inception! It is

discernible from the statements made by panic-stricken political

functionaries of the state government and the analyses made in the media.

To cite a few examples:

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, the then Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra state,

expressed his agony about the financial problems of the state on the floor of

the State Assembly as under:

Wherever we go, the farmers are asking for irrigation and electricity facilities. Where can we fetch them from? (25-02-1954)

Now we are dragging on with a deficit of 18 crore rupees. We are not in a position to pay salaries to the staff unless the central government comes to our rescue.

(05-11-1953)

Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first year of its inception. (25-01-1956)

Bezawada Gopala Reddy, the then Chief Minister of the Andhra

state, too expressed anxiety over the financial plight of the new state in the

following words:

Out of 22 crore rupees of revenue receipts, administrative expenditure alone is eating away 20 crores. (Andhra Assembly 15-09-1954)

He expressed similar concern outside the assembly also:

Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has become a difficult exercise.


On the ongoing debate about the innumerable problems confronting

the then Andhra state, a reputed Telugu daily of those times, Andhra

Patrika, made these comments:

The financial condition of the Andhra State is not at all satisfactory; nor is it likely to improve in future. There is no likelihood of paying salaries to the government employees by the end of March (1955). ...

(03-12-1954)

There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at all possible to take up any new projects.

(09-02-1956)

Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for developmental works; nor is there any likelihood of it even in the coming five years. Floating loans for developmental works has become impossible.

(06-07-1955)

It was at that time the Government of India had set up the States

Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in order to examine the question of

reorganising the Indian states and make recommendations there for. The

SRC, in its report, categorically and unequivocally recommended retention

of Telangana as a separate state. In this context the SRC elaborately listed

out the reasons for making this recommendation. With regard to the

financial soundness of the Telangana region vis-à-vis the chronic financial

deficit and uncertainty of the then Andhra state, the SRC made the

following observation:

The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of some magnitude ever since it was created; and in comparison with Telan- gana, the existing Andhra state has low per capita revenue. Telangana, on the other hand, is much less likely to be faced with financial embarrassment… Whatever the explanation may be … the result of the unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development schemes may be financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced. Telangana claims to be progressive and from an administrative point of view, unification, it is contended, is not likely to confer any benefit on this area. (Para 376)

Such was the pathetic plight of the erstwhile Andhra state! It was a real

hand to mouth struggle in the areas of finance and development. For

coming out of such a mess, all hopes of Andhra leaders were pinned down

on the formation of Visalandhra (the present Andhra Pradesh). But the SRC

was not in favour of unsettling the financial stability of Telangana for bailing

out the then Andhra state from its chronic financial instability.

A Conditional Merger:

Then, the Andhra leadership indulged in lobbying and manipulative politics.

Innumerable promises of protecting the interests of Telangana were made

in the event of its merger with the Andhra state. The national leadership

succumbed to the pressure of the Andhra leaders and gave green signal for

the merger of surplus Telangana with the deficit Andhra, subject to

providing several statutory safeguards to the people of Telangana. It was

made abundantly clear that the merger was neither unconditional nor would

it be eternal. The political leaders of Telangana (not the people) trusted the

national leadership and entered into an agreement which has come to be

known as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. One of the important clauses of

that Agreement was to prohibit the diversion of Telangana revenue

surpluses to meet the deficit of Andhra region. The relevant clause reads as

follows:

The expenditure of the Central and General Administration of the State should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of income from Telangana should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area.

Violation of Conditions:

But the violation of this clause, along with several other clauses of the

Gentlemen’s Agreement, started from the very first day of the formation of

Andhra Pradesh by the very same gentlemen who inked their signatures on

the Agreement. These violations included, among other, the diversion of the

revenue surpluses of Telangana to meet the deficit of Andhra region.

Regarding the quantum of Telangana revenues diverted to the Andhra

area, it was established by the enquiries instituted by the Government of

India and the State Government that between 1.11.1956 (i.e. the day of

formation of the State) and 31.03.1957, spanning a period of just five

months, more than 41% of the Telangana revenue income was diverted to

the Andhra region (See Table II) to meet its insurmountable financial

problems. And this illegal and unethical diversion did not stop with those

five months; it continued unabated. This became one of the principal

reasons for the revolt of people of Telangana in 1968-69 and reiteration of

their demand for separation of Telangana from the forced merger with

Andhra.

Telangana Surpluses – Pre 1969 Scenario:

Consequently, the governments of the time at the Centre and in the State were compelled to assess the quantum of Telangana surpluses diverted to Andhra region for the period from 01.11.1956 to 31.03.1968. The first exercise on this count was done by K. Lalit, an Officer on Special Duty, deputed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (referred to as Lalit Committee). Subsequently, the Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi, constituted a high power committee under the chairmanship of Vashishth Bhargava, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India (referred to as Bhargava Committee) to have a further look into the matter. Both the committees came to more or less the same conclusions. With some variations in computing the figures here and there, both the committees clearly established that the surplus revenues of Telangana were transferred constantly and continuously to meet the revenue deficit of Andhra area. A glance at the figures culled out from the reports of these two committees gives an idea as to the extent of damage done to Telangana region in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh. It could be seen in the following two tables:

Table - IRevenue Receipts of Andhra and Telangana

from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968

(Rs. In Lakhs)

S.No. Year Andhra% of Total

Telangana% of Total

Total% of Total

1 1956 - 57 1,450.01 57.00 1,093.88 43.00 2,543.89 1002 1957 - 58 3,987.84 63.98 2,244.79 36.02 6,232.63 1003 1958 - 59 4,085.05 60.50 2,667.18 39.50 6,752.23 1004 1959 - 60 4,743.30 57.88 3,451.10 42.12 8,194.40 1005 1960 - 61 5,176.53 60.69 3,352.36 39.31 8,528.89 1006 1961 - 62 4,766.00 55.57 3,810.83 44.43 8,576.83 1007 1962 - 63 6,027.51 57.22 4,506.55 42.78 10,534.06 1008 1963 - 64 7,567.08 59.78 5,091.79 40.22 12,658.87 1009 1964 - 65 7,780.57 59.14 5,375.91 40.86 13,156.48 10010 1965 - 66 7,769.37 56.07 6,087.29 43.93 13,856.66 10011 1966 - 67 8,681.33 55.21 7,044.00 44.79 15,725.33 10012 1967 - 68 9,866.16 59.48 6,720.47 40.52 16,586.63 100

Total71,900.7

5 58.29 51,446.15 41.71 123,346.90 100

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of A.P.,1969

It is clear that the contribution of Telangana to the State’s Revenue receipts was,

on an average, 41.71% of the total receipts during the initial 12-year period of

State’s existence, as against 58.29% of the other region. It should be remembered

that the population of Telangana during that period was around 35% of total

population of the State, while that of Andhra was about 65%. It means that the per

capita tax effort was higher in Telangana than in Andhra.

Table - II

Transfer of Telangana Surplus Revenue Income to Andhrafrom 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968

(Rs. In Lakhs)

Year Receipts ExpenditureSurplus Transferred

% of RevenueTransferred

to Andhra to Andhra

1956 -57 1,093.88 644.58 449.30 41.071957- 58 2,244.79 1,896.67 348.12 15.511958- 59 2,667.18 2,242.69 424.49 15.92

1959- 60 3,451.10 2,598.16 852.94 24.721960- 61 3,352.36 3,000.34 352.02 10.501961- 62 3,810.83 3,381.37 429.46 11.271962- 63 4,506.55 3,837.69 668.86 14.841963- 64 5,091.79 4,228.95 862.84 16.951964- 65 5,375.91 4,764.70 611.21 11.371965- 66 6,087.29 5,555.39 531.90 8.741966- 67 7,044.00 6,376.45 667.55 9.481967- 68 6,720.47 6,526.31 194.16 2.89

Total 51,446.15 45,053.30 6,392.85 12.43

Source : Report on the Quantum of Telangana Surpluses (Kumar Lalith Report) Govt. of A.P., 1969

It is also clear that the diversion of Telangana revenue income to the Andhra region went on throughout that period, unabated. During the very first year and itself, it was a staggering 41.07% of Telengana revenues. During 1956-57 1967-68 it was, on an average, 12.43% .

The condition stipulated in the Gentlemen’s Agreement was essentially

related to the Revenue Income and Revenue Expenditure and the resultant

Revenue Surplus or Deficit. It was not very much relevant to the

Development Expenditure. According to the norms laid down by the Planning

Commission and the Government of India, the major determinants of

allocation for development expenditure are: population, geographical area,

per capita tax effort and per capita income. At that point of time the

population of Telangana was more than 35% of the State’s population. The

per capita tax effort of Telangana was higher and the per capita income was

lower, as compared to the Andhra region. On all these counts the Telangana

region was entitled to around 40% percent of the allocation out of the total

development expenditure of the State for that period. But, while computing

the Telangana surpluses vis-à-vis the development expenditure, it was

strangely restricted to 33.3% of the total expenditure. It was not even

proportionate to the population of the region; leave alone the area’s higher

per capita tax effort and lower per capita income. As a result, the quantum of

Telangana surpluses determined was far lower than what the region was

legitimately entitled to.

Whatever be the figures arrived at, the indisputable fact underscored by Lalit

and Bhargava Committees was the blatant and constant diversion of

Telangana income to the Andhra region violating all the norms laid down, all

the safeguards given and all the agreements arrived at as pre conditions for

the merger of Telangana with Andhra. Thereby the colossal recurring

damage caused to the development of Telangana cannot be easily

assessed. It was aptly summed by the Bhargava Committee in the following

words:

If the amounts of surplus found which remained unspent in any year had actually been spent in that very year or in the year succeeding, the amount of development which could have been brought about by such amount could have been much larger than would be possible on 31st March 1968 or thereafter. The obvious reason is that there has been a continuous rise in the price level. The result of this rise in prices is that, for doing the same amount of development work which could have been done earlier, the amount that will have to be spent after 31st march 1968 would be very much larger… If these amounts had been spent in those very years when they were available for development, the prompt execution of the works of development would have given its own return and that return would have further accelerated the pace of development.

(Report of the Bhargava Committee)

These observations of the Bhargava Committee get reflected in various

spheres of development that has taken place in the Andhra region at the

expense of the Telangana region. For instance:

i) By the time the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed, two major

irrigation projects of Andhra area namely, the Godavari barrage at

Dhavaleswaram and the Krishna barrage at Vijayawada were dilapidated

and needed immediate renovation and reconstruction. The then Andhra state

was totally bankrupt and was completely helpless to take up those works.

The merger of Telangana became a boon for the Andhra region. The surplus

revenues of Telangana came handy to the Andhra bosses of the new state.

These two projects which were almost dead were not only reconstructed but

the ayacut was also substantially increased. These two projects put together

now irrigate more than 25 lakh acres in karif and nearly half of it in rabi.

ii) Had those surpluses of Telangana region been spent on the Sriram

Sagar Project, at least half of the Telangana region would have become

prosperous – perhaps more than the now affluent delta region. The

construction of Sriram Sagar Project was deliberately kept in abeyance to

facilitate the diversion of Telangana surplus revenues to the Andhra region. It

is now more than four decades that the work on this project was initiated; but

not even half of it is completed. Out of 20 lakh acres of ayacut proposed to be

brought under this project, not even 5 lakh acres get irrigation facilities, that

too for one crop, even to this day.

Will the powers that be able to assess the recurring and cumulative loss caused to

Telangana on this score?

Who will be able to determine the quantum of compensation and who will pay it to

undo the colossal damage done to the region and its people?

Telangana Surpluses – The Post 1969 Scenario:

The experience of the people of Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra

Pradesh was so bitter, during the initial twelve year period itself. In order to

prevent the recurrence of similar experience regarding the income and

expenditure of the Telangana region, it was reiterated that all the details of

the income and expenditure for Andhra and Telangana regions should be

shown separately in the annual budget of the State. It was followed for a

couple of years; but was given up abruptly without any valid reasons. As a

result, the Andhra bosses got a free hand to do anything to deprive

Telangana of its rightful share in the financial allocations. And everything

went on unnoticed, and is still going on clandestinely. It has not stopped at

that. On the contrary, the Andhra leadership has been arguing, day-in and

day-out, that the Telangana region is getting a lion’s share in the financial

allocations while the other regions are foregoing their rightful share.

Ironically, and also sadly, the Telangana leadership never dared to question

this untenable claim of the Andhra leadership; obviously for its own survival.

As a result, the damage caused today to the Telangana region from 1970

onwards is much more than the damage done during the preceding spell of

12 to 14 years. The fact, even to this day, is that the financial resources

which legitimately belong to Telangana are being diverted for the

development of other regions. In the absence of related details in the budget

statements and lack of transparency in the functioning of the State

Government, one has to decipher the details from a variety of other

documents.

Rosaiah’s Statement – An Analysis:

An analysis on this count is made on the basis of the statement made by K.

Rosaiah on the floor of the State Assembly in March 2007. It clearly

establishes the fact that the revenue income of Telangana is more than that

of the other regions put together; and, the expenditure incurred in this region

is far less than its income. Rosaiah tried to camouflage the issue, yet he

could not cover up the stark realities.

The Details:

Five members of the AP Legislative Assembly asked the then Finance

Minister, K. Rosaiah, to furnish the region-wise details of revenue income and

expenditure for a period of three years. In reply to this question the Finance

Minister placed details on the table of the House, during its Budget Session in

March 2007. They could be seen in Tables III and IV:

Table-III

a) Revenue:

RegionYear-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07(Jan/07)

1. Andhra 2796 3494 3702 3690

2. Rayalaseema 730 867 1004 987

3. Telangana 5565 4725 5935 6093

4. Head quarters 5095 8311 9708 9319

Total 14186 17397 20349 20089

5. Others 3220 3283 4055 4980

6. Grand Total 17406 20680 24404 25069

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session – 9

Table-IV

(b) Expenditure:

S.No

RegionYear-Wise Plan Expenditure (Rupees in Crores)

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07(Jan/07)

1. Andhra 3848 3799 4532 3489

2. Rayalaseema 2150 2411 2684 2881

3. Telangana 5158 5546 711 5987

4. Head Quarters 706 893 976 682

Total 11862 12649 15303 13039

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session - 9

The statement made by K. Rosaiah Is analysed in two parts: one pertains to

Revenue Income and the other to Expenditure.

Revenue Income:

The region-wise break up given by K. Rosaiah is not only intriguing but is

also inexplicable. It is not clear as to on what basis and with what authority

he had segregated headquarters from the rest of the Telangana region. It

goes contrary to the established policy of the State Government contained in

Letter No 7193/68-1 dated 03.02.1969 of the Finance Secretary of the State

Government which inter alia elaborated the principles of computing the

income of different regions. The relevant extract of the Letter says:

The receipts accruing in the respective areas will be credited to those regions while the receipts at the

headquarters will be credited to the Telangana region except in cases where they specifically relate to Andhra region.

Similarly the Finance Minister had not given the region-wise breakup of the

receipts under the Head ‘Others’. These two are evidently aimed at

artificially trimming the revenue income of Telangana. In spite of this

jugglery, he could not hide the fact that even if the income of the

Headquarters is not taken into account, revenue receipts of Telangana

continue to be far higher than the revenue receipts of Andhra and

Rayalaseema regions put together. It could be clearly seen in the following

Tables:

Table – VRegion wise Brake up of Revenue Income

Excluding Hyderabad

S.No

RegionYear-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)

2003-04 2004-05 2005-062006-

07(Jan/07)

1. Andhra2796

(30.75%)3494

(38.45%)3702

(34.78%)3690

(34.26%)

2. Rayalaseema730

(8.02%)867

(9.54%)1004

(9.43%)987

(9.16%)Total of Andhra & Rayalaseema

3526(38.77%)

4361(47.99%)

4706(44.21%)

4677(43.42%)

3. Telangana 5565(61.23%)4725

(52.01%)5935

(55.79%)6093

(56.58%)

Total of Regions 9091(100%) 9086(100%) 10641(100%) 10770(100%)

By furnishing these figures, K. Rosaiah had admitted that even without

reckoning the revenue receipts of the Headquarters, Telangana’s

contribution to the State’s revenues is far higher when compared to the

contribution of the other two regions, put together or separately as detailed

below:

Telangana between 61.23% and 52.01%

Andhra between 38.45% and 30.75%

Rayalaseema between 09.54% and 8.02%

Andhra & Rayalaseema between 47.99% and 38.77% What more evidence is required to prove that the contribution of

Telangana to the State’s Revenues is always higher than the other two

regions, even after showing the income of the Headquarters

separately?

If the incomes of the Headquarters and Telangana are taken together, and

rightly so, the contribution of Telangana on one hand, and Andhra and

Rayalaseema put together on the other, the position would be as shown in

Table VI:

Table – VIRegion wise Brake up of Revenue Income

Including HyderabadS.No

Region Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (Jan/07)

1. Total of Andhra & Rayalaseema

3526(24.05%)

4361(25.06%)

4706(23.12%)

4677(23.28%)

2. Total of Telangana with Head Quarters

10660

(75.95%)

13036(74.94%)

15643(76.88%)

15412(76.72%)

Total of AP 14186(100%) 17397(100%) 20349(100%)

20089(100%)

Therefore, the contributions of two principle regions of the State to the State’s revenues are as under:

Telangana between 76.88% and 74.94%

Andhra & Rayalaseema between 25.06% and 23.12%

If the region-wise details of Receipts under the Head ‘Others’ also are provided, the contribution of Telangana is bound to go still further up.

a) Plan Expenditure:

With regard to expenditure the information given by Rosaiah consists of only

Plan Expenditure and not Revenue Expenditure. The purpose of not revealing

the details of Revenue Expenditure is, obviously to hide the fact of

overspending in Andhra region more than its Revenue Income permits and

also to conceal the fact of under spending in Telangana, in spite of a higher

level of Revenue Receipts in the region. In the absence of details of Revenue

Expenditure, an assessment is made about the quantum of Plan Expenditure

vis-à-vis the levels of Revenue Income. It could be seen in Table VII:

b) Expenditure:

S. No. Region Revenue Income

Plan Expenditure

Excess(+) or Shortfall(-) of

4 over 3

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Andhra 13,682 15,668 1,986(+)

2. Rayalaseema 3,588 10,126 6,538(+)

3. Telangana 22,318 17,402 4,916(-)

4. Head Quarters 32,433 3,257 29,176(-)

Total 72,021 52,853 19,168(-)

Source: LAQ NO.7406 (Starred) of A.P. Legislative Assembly Session – 9

The points to be noted here are:

i. During the period chosen by Rosaiah, Plan Expenditure in Andhra and Rayalaseema is far in excess of the Revenue Income of those regions.

Where that money has come from?

ii. During the same period, the Plan Expenditure in Telangana is far less than what the Revenue Income of the region facilitates.

Where that money has gone?

iii. The Plan Expenditure in the Headquarters, for the said period is far, far below its Revenue Income.

What has happened to that huge component of Revenue Income? In which region and for what purpose it was spent?

Answers to these questions will show as to which region is denied of its

rightful share and which region is the beneficiary.

What about the Income from the sale of Telangana lands?

Another important factor which does not figure in the statement of Rosaiah is

the income, running into several thousands of crores of rupees, accruing

through the indiscriminate sale of Telangana lands, especially in and around

the city of Hyderabad. It is the common knowledge that a substantial part of

these receipts was spent, and also is being spent on the development

projects in the other regions.

Telangana’s Contribution to State’s Exchequer:

In this context the primary reasons for higher contributions of Telangana to

the revenue income of the State need to be perused.

The Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections constitute a substantial part

(around 80%) of the State’s revenues; and the Telangana region is the major

contributor to both these heads. To substantiate this position, region-wise

details pertaining to Sales Tax receipts and Excise Collections for a few

years, as an example, are furnished in Table VIII:

Table – VIIIRegion-Wise Breakup of Sales Tax Collections

Source: Directorate

of Economics and Statistics,

Govt. of AP; Statistical

Abstracts of the Years

concerned

Table – IX

Excise Collections in Telangana vis-à-vis the Total Collections in the State

(Rs. In Crores)

S.No Region Collection Percent of Total

1

2

Andhra & Rayalaseema

Telangana

2000-01(Rs in Lakhs)139,843.33

433,796.29

24.38%

75.62%

3. AP Total 573,639.62 100%

1.

2.


Telangana

2003-04(Rs in Lakhs)179,211.75

583,902.25

23.48%

76.52%

3. AP Total 763,114.00 100%

1.

2.


Telangana

2005-06(Rs in crores)206,983.75

646,370.94

24.26%

75.74%

3. AP Total 853,354.69 100%

S.No Year Total Collections (AP)

Collections in Telangana

% Of Telangana

1

2.

3.

2008-09

2007-08

2005-06

5753.43

4056.86

3436.63

4077.45

2966.13

2460.63

70.86%

73.11%

71.6%

Source: Office of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of AP.

It is clear that the Sales Tax Receipts and Excise Collections together

contribute nearly 80% of the State’s own tax revenues. State’s own taxes

include, besides Sales Tax and Excise Collections, Taxes on Motor

Vehicles, Stamps and Registration. Land Revenue, Professional Tax,

Electricity Duty, NALA etc. This aspect is amplified in the following Table:

Table –XShare of Sales Tax and Excise Collections in the Total Revenue from

State’s Own Taxes (Rs. In Crores)

S.No Year Total

Collections (AP)

Share of ST & Excise

% Of Total Tax

Revenue

1

2.

3.

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

33358

28794

23926

27605

23067

18904

82.75%

80.11%

79.01%

Source: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP

It is evident that the revenues from other taxes of the State Government

constitute only a minor part of the total revenue of the State’s Taxes.

In addition to the State’s own tax and the non-tax revenues, there will be a

flow of resources from the Central Government. These flows include,

among others, devolution of share in the central taxes and grants based on

the recommendations of the Finance Commission, grants and assistance

from the Planning Commission, funds for externally aided and centrally

sponsored schemes.

While determining the state’s share in central taxes and grants-in-aid, the

Finance Commission gives sufficient weightage to the backward regions

within the state. Therefore, Telangana is entitled to a higher share in these

revenues as well.

All these factors clearly establish that around ¾ th of Revenue income from

the State’s own tax revenues and non-tax resources is contributed by the

Telangana region. Regarding the share of Telangana in the flow of

resources from the Central Government, it cannot be in any case less than

50% if the norms laid down by the Finance Commission and Planning

Commission are scrupulously adhered to. The sum and substance of this

entire scenario is that the contribution of Telangana to the State’s exchequer

is more than the contribution of Andhra and Rayalaseema put together.

Expenditure on Telangana:

But the vital question to be answered is as to what proportion of these

resources is spent for the Telangana region? There was a possibility of

assessing this aspect until early 1970s because of the condition to show the

details of region-wise income and expenditure, separately, in the annual

budgets of the State. The State Government abruptly and arbitrarily

abandoned this practice for the reasons that are so obvious. Therefore, a

different methodology needs to be adopted to make an assessment.

Under the alternative method, evaluation can be made not necessarily on

the basis of actual expenditure incurred, but also on the basis of targets

achieved in physical terms. For instance, in the field of canal irrigation it

could be a region-wise breakup of the extent of area getting irrigation

facilities through that canal system under major and minor irrigation projects

built and maintained by the Government. By any logic the ratios of land

under canal irrigation between the regions will also reflect the ratios of

expenditure as well. Similarly, the proportion of expenditure can be

evaluated by the number of units on which the government spends, such as

the number of teachers working in the institutions managed and aided by

the government, the number of students studying or number of seats

available in government funded educational institutions. In some cases

figures relating to actual expenditure incurred can be culled out from the

orders of the government issued periodically or sporadically to release funds

for various activities of the government.

By adopting this methodology an assessment is made to arrive at the ratios

of expenditure between Andhra and Telangana regions in certain vital

spheres of State’s activity. In this context it is to be kept in view that the

population of Telangana is about 41% of the State’s total population.

Geographically it covers 41.67 % of the total area of the State. The region’s

contribution to the State’s exchequer is substantially more than that of the

other regions.

a) Canal Irrigation:

The Directorate of Economics and Statistics publishes, every year, the

details regarding the area irrigated by different sources. Canal Irrigation is a

major segment and the entire expenditure of constructing major and

medium irrigation projects together with the canals and also their

maintenance is borne by the government. Spending on irrigation projects is

always a major component of the government’s expenditure. It is needless

to say that distributive justice among the regions should be ensured in this

regard. But the facts and figures published by the Government itself are

appalling. During the year 2007-08 a total of 16, 10,000 hectares were

irrigated under canal system. Out of this the area irrigated in Telangana was

2, 22,000 hectares, i.e., a mere 13.79%. Even during the best of times, it

was, at the most, 18%.

Does it not mean that out of the total expenditure incurred on major

and medium irrigation projects, Telangana accounts for less than 1/5 th

of it?

b) Social Welfare:

The government spends huge amounts on social welfare programmes. Most

of these programmes are regulated through the white ration cards issued to

the people who are below the poverty line. The schemes include provision of

subsidized rice, kerosene, sugar, housing, pensions, medicare (Aarogyasri)

and so on. The white ration card has thereby become an important

identification card for availing of the benefit of these schemes. Now the

question is: What should be the number of cards issued in a region? It

should naturally be related to the population of the area and poverty levels

therein. The population of Telangana area is about 41%. Therefore the

number of white ration cards issued in the region should be at least 41% of

the total number of cards issued in the state, if not more, because of relative

poverty factor in the region. But the number of white ration cards issued has

all along been around 36-37%, according to the figures published by the

Government. Consequently, the loss to the poor people of the region could

be seen hereunder:

i) White ration cards 36-37%

ii) Subsidized Rice 37%

iii) Housing (Indiramma Houses) 33.85%

Sources: Socioeconomic Survey, 2009-10; Planning Department, Govt. of AP

Directorate of Economics and Statistics

Medicare (Rajiv Aarogyasri) Figures are easily not available: but situation

cannot be different as it also is dependent on the white ration cards.

c) Education:

i) Collegiate Education:

It is well known that the salary component paid to the teaching and

supporting staff of these institutions constitutes more than 90% of the total

expenditure. The region-wise details of staff working in such institutions and

thereby the extent of expenditure incurred on them culled out from the

official statistics for the year 2007-08 are given hereunder:

Table –XI

Number of Teachers in Government and Aided Degree Colleges

S. No

Region No. of Teachers Actual % Entitlement %

1.Andhra 8828 70.5 59.31

2. Telangana 3709 29.50 40.69

3. Andhra Pradesh 12,537 100 100

Source: Statistical Abstract, 2008; Directorate of Economics and Statistics, AP

A look at the quantum of Grant-in Aid released by the State Government to

Private-Aided Colleges for the year 2008-09 throws some more light in this

regard. It could be seen in the following Table:

Table –XII

Grant-in-Aid Released to Private Aided Degree Colleges (2008-09)

S. No. RegionGrant-in-Aid(in

Rupees)

Actual % Entitlement %

1. Andhra 1,521,445,289 75.25 59.31

2. Telangana 49,89,60,900 24.75 40.69

Andhra Pradesh 202,14,05,189 100 100

Source: Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

This disparity has been there ever since the formation of Andhra Pradesh.

ii) University Education:

There are six (old) universities with regional jurisdictions offering facilities of

general education. The disparities with regard to Per Capita Block Grant

could be seen in the following Table:

Table –XIII

Per Capita Block Grant to the Six Old Universities (2004 to 2009)

S. No

Region UniversityPer Capita

Block Grant(In Rupees)

1.

Andhra I. Andhra 35,500

II. Nagarjuna 22,700

III. Sri Venkateswara 37,500

IV. Sri Krishna Devaraya 25,000

Avarage per capita

30,175

2Telangana

i. Osmania 17,400

ii. Kakatiya 14,000

Average per capita 15,700

Source: Budget Documents for the Years 2004-2009 presented to the AP Assembly

This has been going on for the last five decades.

iii.) Professional Education:

Cost-wise professional education, especially in the areas of Medicine

and Engineering is the most expensive component of the system. Every

additional seat enormously adds to the expenditure. The region-wise

expenditure naturally depends upon the number of seats available in every

region. Therefore, a perusal of region-wise breakup of seats in these courses

also connotes the ratio of expenditure. Tables XIV presents this picture.

Table –XIV

Disparities in Facilities of Professional Education

S. No.

Courses

No. of SeatsTotal (AP)

Andhra % of Total

Entitlement

%

Telangana % of Total

Entitlement %

1 Medicine18,00

0 1200 66.67 59.31 600 33.33 40.69

2Engineering 3,760 2,625 69.82 59.31 1,135 30.18 40.69

Source: AP State Council of Higher Education

This has been the scenario, all through, not withstanding constant protests,

agitations going on in the State, demanding the separation of Telangana

from Andhra Pradesh.

d) Crop Insurance:Table XV

Crop Insurance Fund Allocation for the year 2008 - 09

(Rs. In Lakhs)

SNo. Region Amount Released %

1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 77,897.3397.23

2. Telangana 2,223.142.77

Total 80120.47 100

Source: Agricultural Insurance corporation of India

This discrimination is persistent; in fact, the Telangana region should get a

major share of this fund as the region is more prone to frequent crop

failures. What is important to underscore here is the audacity of the State

Government to pursue its blatantly discriminative policies even in the midst

of an intensified agitation in Telangana.

Table XVI

NABARD Funds 2008 – 09

(Rs. In Lakhs)

S. No. Region Amount Allocated %

1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 12,236.4293.79

2. Telangana 809.726.21

Total 13,046.14 100

Source: G.O. Rt. No. 1845 dated 11-12-2009 of PR & RD Department, Govt. of A.P.

e) Agricultural Loans:

Table XVII

Long Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)

(Rs. In Lakhs)

Total Loan (AP)

AndhraShare

% of Total

Entitlement %

TelanganaShare

% of Total

Entitlement%

13,797.96 10376.25 75.20 59.31 3421.71 24.80 40.69

Table XVIII

Short Terms Loans by AP Co-operative Bank (2006 - 07)

(Rs. In Lakhs)Total Loan

(AP)AndhraShare

% of Total

Entitlement %

TelanganaShare

% of Total

Entitlement %

314172.21 217354.41 69.18 59.31 96817.80 30.82 40.69

Source: AP State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

The cooperative sector of the State also is following the footsteps of the

State Government in denying the Telangana region and its farming

community their rightful share even with regard to repayable loans.

Conclusion:

These are only the samples. The situation is not different in other sectors as

well. The net result is that the Telangana region is contributing more

revenues to the State’s exchequer than the other regions; and, in turn, its

getting far less than what it is entitled to in the realm of expenditure. It has

been going on for more than half a century, causing immeasurable damage

to the economy and people of the region. To epitomize it in one phrase the

region has been “plundered”. It is nevertheless, not an unexpected

development. The SRC itself was prophetic by observing,

One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also seems to be the apprehensions felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of the Coastal

areas...The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they join Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately while Telangana itself may be converted into a colony by the enterprising Andhras”. (SRC Report: Para 378)

What had happened later to Telangana because of its merger

with Andhra is precisely what was predicted by the SRC!

Now the questions before are:

i.) Will the powers that be willing to assess the recurring and cumulative loss caused to Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

ii.) Will they be able to determine the quantum of compensation to undo the damage done to the region and its people?

iii.) Who will pay the compensation?

iv.) Would it be possible to correct the situation and prevent its recurrence within the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh?

The only answer to these questions and the only remedy to all the

maladies is restoration of status quo ante that existed prior to

1.11.1956, i.e., FORMATION OF TELANGANA STATE.

Education

Development of education affects and, in turn gets affected, by the pace of economic development. There is a bidirectional linkage. In this process, low rate of literacy and economic backwardness sustain each other. This is precisely the problem of Telangana.

The forced coexistence of Telangana with Andhra for more than half a century has thrown the region into a very unenviable position in the realm of literacy not only within the regions in the State, but also across the states in the country .

At the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh, it was assured that disparities in the levels of development in different regions of the state, including the field of education, would be removed in five to ten years of time. But even after five and a half decades, the literacy rate in the Telangana region continues to be lowest in the State. The region-wise details are given in the following table:

Table-- I

Literacy Rates (2001 Census)

S. NoRegion

Literacy Rate (%)

Persons Males Females

1. Andhra

62.90 72.00 53.50

2.. Telangana 57.70 68.40 46.80

Andhra Pradesh 60.40 70.30 50.40

Source: Census of India, 2001

It is to be further noted that if the capital city with a literacy rate of 78.80 is not taken into account, the literacy rate of nine districts of Telangana is less compared to North Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, said to be the most backward areas of the State.

In this scenario the Telangana region ranks 32 among the 35 States (including 7 Union Territories) at the national level.

With regard to the literacy of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of the region, the position is much worse, as is evident from the following figures:

Table-- II

Literacy Rates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

S.No Region Category Literacy Rate (%)

Persons Males Females

1.Andhra

SCs

STs

47.60

38.40

66.60

47.40

42.50

29.30

2. Telangana

SCs

STs

47.10

33.30

58.30

44.50

35.60

21.60

Andhra Pradesh

SCs

STs

63.50

37.00

63.50

47.70

43.40

26.10

Source: Census of India, 2001

The main reason for the prevalence of low literary rate in Telangana is the result of uneven distribution of educational facilities in different regions of the State. The important factor to be kept in view in this regard is the percentage of population spread over the regions of the State, i.e., 41.58% in Coastal Andhra, 17.73% in Rayalaseema and 40.69% in Telangana. This is necessary to assess the adequacy or otherwise of the facilities of education created vis-a-vis the size of the population and the levels of literacy achieved. The removal of regional disparities would be possible only when the government takes special care in providing the necessary facilities. But it has not happened in the case of Telangana.

A perusal of the statistics published and released every year by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics of the State Government makes startling revelations. Between 1956 and 2001, spanning a period of 45 years, at no point of time the enrollment of students at the primary school level – a crucial stage – was more than 32-33 percent. It should have been at least 40.69 percent of the total enrollment in the state. Though from the year 2001 onwards, there has been some improvement with regard to enrollment in this region, the higher dropout rate here is nullifying the end result. The region-wise dropout rates relating to classes I-V registered during the year 2007-08 are as follows:

Table-- III

Dropout Rates (Classes I-V), 2007-08

S. No Region Dropout Rate (%)

1

2

3

Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema

Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

23.69

13.41

62.90

100


One of the major factors for the highest dropout rate in Telangana is the poverty of the parents, which is the consequence of economic backwardness of the region.

Collegiate Education

The situation prevailing in the sphere of collegiate education (Degree and Junior Colleges) is also more or less the same as at the primary school level. It becomes evident from the number of teachers working in these colleges, managed by the State Government and the private aided colleges receiving grant-in-aid from the government. It is well known that the salary component paid to the teaching and supporting staff of these institutions constitutes more than 90% of the total expenditure incurred by the government on these institutions. The region wise details of staff working in such institutions, and thereby the extent of expenditure incurred on them, culled out from the official statistics for the year 2007-08 are given hereunder:

Degree Colleges:

Table--IV

Number of Teachers in Government and Aided Degree Colleges

S. No Region No. of Teachers Actual % Entitlement %

2.Andhra 8828 70.5 59.31

3. Telangana 3709 29.50 40.69

Andhra Pradesh 12,537 100 100


These figures make it abundantly clear that only 29.50% of the expenditure is incurred on the Telangana region against its entitlement of a minimum of

40.69%. Obviously a disproportionately higher allocation is made to the other regions.

Further, a look at the quantum of grant-in-aid released by the State Government to the private aided colleges for the year 2008-09 throws some more light on the discriminatory policies of the State Government. It could be seen in the following table:

Table-- V

Grant-in-Aid Released to Private Aided Degree Colleges (2008-09)

S. No.Region Grant-in-Aid

(in Rupees)

Actual % Entitlement %

3. Andhra 1,521,445,289 75.25 59.31

4. Telangana 49,89,60,900 24.75 40.69

Andhra Pradesh 202,14,05,189 100 100

Source: Commissionaraite of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Further details to be noted are:

i. The nine Telangana districts (excluding the capital city) account for Rs. 17,05,51,900, i.e. just 8.41% of the total grant released for the entire state.

ii. In Coastal Andhra, just two districts (Krishna and Guntur) get Rs. 61, 42,47,000 i.e., 30.38% of the total grant meant for the 23 districts of the State.

Junior Colleges:

The position obtaining in the Government and Government aided Junior Colleges also is more or less the same. In the case of Government Junior Colleges, the staffing pattern is balanced at the moment. But it is offset by the staffing pattern of the Aided Private Junior Colleges which is very much disadvantageous to Telangana. The details are given in Table VI:

Table--VI

Number of Posts of Teachers in Government and Aided Junior Colleges

S. No Region No. of Posts Actual % Entitlement %

1.

Andhra

Government

Aided

4588

1578

49.57

79.98

59.31

2.Telangana

Government

Aided

4668

395

50.43

20.02

40.69

Andhra Pradesh

Government

Aided

9256

1973

100

100

100

Source: Board of Intermediate Education, AP

A peripheral look at these figures creates an impression that with regard to number of posts of teachers in Government Junior Colleges, Telangana is in a better position. But the fact is that more than half of these posts are kept vacant with the possibility of abolishing them altogether. This policy is being pursued silently but effectively in a phased manner. It is happening in Andhra area also to some extent. But it is being compensated by admitting to grant-in-aid a large number of posts in Private Aided Colleges. Whereas, in Telangana area the number of posts admitted to grant-in-aid is a staggering 20%.

Universities

There are two categories of universities in the State funded by the State Government.

i. Universities with state-wide jurisdiction – 17 in number.

ii. Universities with jurisdiction restricted to specific region or district – 16 in number.

Table-- VII

Universities with State-wide Jurisdiction

1. Coastal Andhra:

1. NTR University of Health Sciences (Vijayawada)2. AP Horticultural University (West Godavari)3. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, JNTU, (Kakinada)4. AP University of Law (Visakhapatnam) 5. Dravidian University (Kuppam)6. Sri Padmavathi Women’s University (Tirupathi)7. SV Institute of Medical Sciences, SVIMS (Tirupathi)8. SV Vedic University (Tirupathi)9. SV University of Veterinary Sciences (Tirupathi)10. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, JNTU, (Ananthapur)11. Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge and Technology, RGUKT

(Idupulapaya)

2. Telangana:

1. Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University2. Dr. BR Ambedkar Open University3. Potti Sriramulu Telugu University4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, JNTU5. Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences6. Jawaharlal Nehru University of Architecture and Fine Arts

(Telangana, 9 districts NONE)

Source: AP State Council of Higher Education.

In this context, there are quite a few intriguing facts to be noted:

i. The JNTU was actually established in Warangal (Telangana); but was subsequently shifted to Hyderabad under the pretext of locating all state level universities of the State in the capital city. It was done by the then Congress Government.

ii. The Open University was originally launched on the northern banks of Nagarjuna Sagar in Nalgonda district (Telangana); but was shifted within two months to Hyderabad, again, on the same pretext. And this was done by the NTR led TDP government.

iii. The same NTR started the University of Health Sciences in Vijayawada (Coastal Andhra) and the Women’s University in Tirupathi (Rayalaseema), conveniently forgetting the convention of locating the state level universities in the capital city.

iv. NTR’s successor and son-in-law Chandrababu Naidu followed his footsteps and located the Dravidian University in a remote village Kuppam and SVIMS in Tirupathi -- both in the Rayalaseema region.

v. Rajasekhar Reddy continued this practice without any reason or restraint and went on the spree of establishing state level universities mostly in Rayalaseema and Andhra regions. They are:

a) Horticulture University in West Godavari District (Coastal Andhra)b) Law University in Visakhapatnam (Coastal Andhra)c) University of Veterinary Sciences in Tirupathi (Rayalseema)d) Vedic University in Tirupathi (Rayalseema)e) RGUKT in Idupulapaya, a village in Kadapa (Rayalseema)

vi. State level universities situated in the capital city have a few noteworthy dimensions:

a) When JNTU was shifted from Warangal to Hyderabad, it was endowed with the facility of having two constituent colleges, one in Kakinada (Coastal Andhra) and the other in Ananthpur (Rayalaseema), but none in Telangana. Recently, JNTU has been trifurcated by upgrading the campuses at Kakinada and Ananthapur into full-fledged universities and truncating the jurisdiction of the parent university in the capital city. But the nine districts of Telangana do not have a JNTU like the other two regions.

b) The story of Agricultural University is much more difficult to comprehend. All the courses offered by this university were once an integral part of Osmania University. Therefore, all the seats

were available mostly, if not exclusively, to the students of Telangana. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh, all the departments of this discipline were taken away from the Osmania University to form the present state level agricultural university. As a result, the students of Telangana are left with a mere 36% of the seats. It has not stopped at that. The establishment of the University of Veterinary Sciences at Tirupathi (Rayalaseema) and horticultural University in West Godavari (Andhra) caused considerable erosion in the significance of the parent agricultural university, which, in fact, is an offshoot of Osmania University.

vii. Location of a university in a district place facilitates and contributes to the development of that area. For instance, the University of Health Sciences in Vijayawada and SVIMS in Tirupathi have improved the medical facilities in and around those towns, besides providing employment opportunities to the locals. Similarly, the Dravidian University has considerably changed the face of Kuppam, a small svillage in the Rayalaseema region. Likewise four state level universities, besides one regional university, have made Tirupathi town compete with the capital city itself in the field of higher education.

viii. Discrimination in the appointment of vice chancellors and recruitment of staff in these state level universities is more pronounced. At present (2010) hardly three of the seventeen vice chancellors hail from the Telangana region. With regard to the recruitment of staff, none from Telangana gets entry into the universities situated in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions; whereas the gates of all such universities located in Hyderabad are open to everyone. Here, the doctrine of “Might is Right” works; and, in the process, the Telangana component of staff gets restricted to hardly 10% of the total staff.

Table-- VIII

Universities with Regional/District Level Jurisdiction

I. Andhra: 1. Andhra University (Visakhapatnam)2. Acharya nagarjuna university (Guntur)3. Adikavi nannayya Univeiversity (Rajamundry)4. Dr. BR Ambedkar University (Srikakulam)5. Krishna University (Machilipatnam)6. Vikrama Simhapuri University (Nellore) 7. Sri Venkateswara University (Tirupathi)8. Sri Krishna Devaraya University (Ananthapur)9. Yogi Vemana University (Kadapa)10. Rayalaseema University (Kurnool)

II. Telangana:1. Osmania Universwity (Hyderabad)2. Kakatiya University (Warangal)3. Telangana Univwrsity (Nizamabad)4. Mahatma Gandhi University (Nalgonda)5. Satavahana University (Karimnagar)6. Palamoor University (Mahboobnagar)


Region wise dispersal of these universities appears to be balanced, prima facie. But with regard to the allocation of funds, the discrimination against Telangana is blatant. Before the year 2004, the number of these universities in the State was six -- two in each region. The release of grants to these universities has all along been discriminatory, discernable in the per capita expenditure incurred on the students of different universities. The position computed on the basis of grants released between 2005 and 2009 is as under:

Table-- IX

Per Capita Block Grant to the Six Old Universities (2004 to 2009)

S. No

Region University Per Capita Block Grant

(In Rupees)

1.

Andhra I. AndhraII. Nagarjuna

III. Sri Venkateswara IV. Sri Krishna

Devaraya

35,500

22,700

37, 500

25,000

2.Telangana

I. OsmaniaII. Kakatiya

17,400

14,000

Source: Budget Documents for the Years 2004-2009 presented to the AP Assembly

Further, due to its location in the capital city, the Osmania University has ceased to be a university meant exclusively for the students of the Telangana region. Thereby, the students of Telangana are deprived of their rightful share in their own region. This kind of problem does not arise in the regional universities situated in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema.

During Rajasekhar Reddy’s tenure as the Chief Minister, ten new regional/district level universities have been established – four each in Coastal Andhra and Telangana and two in Rayalaseema. Numerically, it appears judicious; but, the pattern of the release of grants to these universities is atrocious. For instance, the Yogi Vemana University in Kadapa, Telangana

University in Nizambad and Mahatma Gandhi University in Nalgonda were started at the same time. The grants released to these universities from their inception till 2009 are as under:

Table X

Block Grant Released to Some New Universities (2006 to 2009)

S. No University Block Grant Released

(In Rupees)

1 Telangana University

(Nizambad, Telangana)

29,50,00,000

2 Mahatma Gandhi University

(Nalgonda, Telangana) 30,51,00,000

3 Yogi Vemana University

(Kadapa, Rayalaseema) 300,00,00,000


Can there be a more blatant example of discrimination against Telangana?

Professional Education

In this section, the institutions offering professional courses in Medicine and Engineering funded and managed by the State Government are taken into consideration. There has no doubt been an indiscriminate proliferation of private colleges offering these courses; but, they are mostly commercial in nature. They are, therefore, not accessible to the clientele, especially in the backward areas.

Medical Education:

A region wise breakup of the government medical colleges is given in the following table:

Table E-XI

Government Medical Colleges

Region No.of Seats

I. Andhra:

1. Andhra Medical College (Visakhapatnam)2. Rangaraya Medical College (Kakinada)3. Guntur Medical College (Guntur)4. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of medical

Sciences (Srikakulam) 5. Siddhartha Medical College (Vijayawada) 6. Sri Venkateswara Medical College (Tirupathi)7. Government Medical College (Kurnool)8. Government Medical College (Ananthapur)9. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Cudappa)

150

150

150

100

100

150

150

100

150

Total Seats

% of Total Seats

% of Entitlement

1200

66.67

59.31

II. Telangana:

1. Osmania Medical College (Hyderabad)2. Gandhi Medical College (Hyderabad)3. Kakatiya Medical College (Warangal)4. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of medical Sciences (Adilabad)

200

150

150 100

Total Seats

% of Total Seats

% of Entitlement

600

33.33

40.69

A.P. Total 1800


It clarifies that the distribution of these colleges is not in proportion to either the number of districts or the population of a region. While the four districts of Rayalaseema, have four colleges, the Telangana region comprising ten districts has, paradoxically, the same number of colleges. Thus while the Rayalaseema with a population of 17. 73% has access to 30.55% of total seats; the Telangana with a population of 40.69% has to satisfy itself with only 33.33% of the total seats.

It is also to be noted that out of 600 seats available in the Telangana colleges, 350 seats are available in the capital city in the two colleges established by the erstwhile Hyderabad Government. After the formation of Andhra Pradesh, these seats ceased to be the exclusive prerogative of the natives of Telangana. Such a problem does not exist in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions.

Table XII

Government Dental Colleges

Region No. of Seats

Actual %Entitlement %

i. Andhra:

a. Government Dental College (Vijayawada)

40

b. Government Dental College (Cudappa)

100

Total 140 77.78 59.31

ii. Telangana:

a. Government Dental College (Hyderabad)

40 22.22 40.69

Andhra Pradesh Total 180 100


The discrimination is so glaring, that it hardly needs any explanation.

Technical Education:

The region wise dispersal of institutions offering Engineering and Technical education is given in the following table:

Table-- XIII

Colleges of Engineering and Technology: Public Sector

Region No. of Seats

I. Andhra:1. Andhra University Engineering College (Visakhapatnam)2. JNTU (Kakinada)3. JNTU College of Engineering (Vijayanagaram)4. JNTU ( Ananthapur)5. JNTU College of Engineering (Pulivendula)6. School of Engineering and Technology, Women’s

University (Tirupathi)7. SV University College of Engineering (Tirupathi)8. SKD College of Engineering (Ananthapur)9. Yogi Vemana University College of

Engineering(Poddatur)10. College of Agricultural Engineering (Ananthapur )

410

250

300

300

300

240

11. College of Food Sciences and Technology (Pulivendula)12. Dairy Technology Programme (Tirupathi)

260

180

300

45

20

20

Total 2625

% of Total Seats

Entitlement %

69.82

59.31

II. Telangana:1. JNTU ( Hyderabad)2. Osmania University College of Engineering (Hyderabad)3. Osmania University College of Technology (Hyderabad)4. Kakatiya University College of Engineering (Kothagudem)5. JNTU College of Engineering (Karimnagar)6. Dairy Technology Programme ( Kamaraddy)

290

320

100

105

300

20

Total 1135

% of Total Seats

Entitlement %

30.18

40.69

A.P. Total 3760


Note: As in the case of Medical Education the allocation of seats in the Engineering colleges is also glaringly disproportionate. While 44.29% of seats are available for 17.73% of population in Rayalaseema, the 40.69% of Telangana population has access to only 30.18% of seats in Engineering colleges. Further, out of 1135 seats available in Telangana, 710 are concentrated in the capital city alone. As explained earlier, these seats in the capital city ceased to be available exclusively for the Telangana clientele.

Admission to State Level Institutions -- Injustice to Telangana:

Admission of students to various state level universities and institutions is regulated on the basis of allocation of seats made to three areas in the State demarcated for this purpose. They are: Andhra University area covering the Coastal Andhra region, excluding Nellore district; SV University area consisting of the Rayalaseema region plus Nellore district; and, Osmania University area comprising the entire Telangana region. Therefore, Telangana’s rightful share in all these institutions should be 40.69% of the total number of seats available. But, ironically, it is restricted to only 36%; and it has been going on for decades.

The questions that arise out of this scenario are:

Can anyone assess and compensate the loss caused all these years to the youth of Telangana in the field of education, especially higher and professional education?

What would be its impact if this unjust and irrational formula continues to be operational even in the years to come?

THE CAPITAL CITY

The legendary city of Hyderabad has a glorious past, spanning a period of nearly five centuries. It was the capital city of the erstwhile Hyderabad State of which the Telangana region was a major component. The blood and sweat of the people of this region have, over generations, gone into the effort of building this great city. It naturally continued to be the capital of the Hyderabad State after its liberation from the feudal regime in 1948. It was by then itself the fifth largest city of India endowed with all magnificent infrastructure facilities and other amenities required for the capital of a state.

The Grandeur of Hyderabad:

On the eve of conditional merger of Telangana with Andhra, Hyderabad was a centre of national attraction with a vast net work of well conceived, well planned, well developed and well maintained structures and institutions. They include --

Buildings required for running the business of the government such as the Raj Bhavan, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, Secretariat, High Court, offices of Heads of Departments, residential accommodation for judges, ministers, legislators, officers, government employees and so on;

Premier institutions of health care like Osmania Hospital, Gandhi Hospital, Nilofer Hospital, Quarantine Hospital, Cancer Hospital, ENT Hospital, Maternity Hospital, Hospital for Chest Diseases, Hospital for Mental Diseases, NIMS, Ayurvedic Hospital, Unani Hospital, Homeopathic Hospital etc.;

Prestigious educational institutions such as Osmania University, Nizam’s College, Women’s College, Saifabad College, Secunderabad College, City College, Osmania Medical College, Gandhi Medical College, Ayurvedic Medical College, Unani Medical College, Homeopathic Medical College, Dental College, College of Physical

Education besides a large number of Government High Schools and the like;

Civic amenities like protected water supply round the clock, underground drainage system, shopping complexes in Abids, Pattarghatti, Sultan Bazaar and Electricity Board;

Recreational facilities and places of tourist importance like Public Gardens, Tank Bund, Gandipet, Golconda Fort, Mecca Masjid, Charminar, Qutubshahi Tombs, a large number of palaces, Salarjung Museum, to mention a few;

A well developed rail, road and air transport system, including the Secunderabad Railway Station, Nampally, Railway Station, Kachiguda Railway Station, Begumpet Airport, Road Transport Corporation, well maintained cement and black top roads.

Such was the pride of Hyderabad – the heart and soul of Telangana.

The Pathetic Plight of Andhra:

On the contrary, the erstwhile Andhra state, formed on 1st October 1953, was in a pathetic plight without a suitable capital. It would be appropriate to recall the observation of Dr. BR Ambedkar in this regard:

The new Andhra State has no fixed capital. I might incidentally say that I have never heard of the creation of a state without a capital. Mr. Rajagopalachari [the then Chief Minister of Madras State] will not show the government of the proposed Andhra state the courtesy of allowing it to stay in Madras city even for one night… The new government is left to choose its own habitat and construct thereon its own hutments to transact the business. What place can we choose? With what can it construct its hutments? Andhra is Sahara and there are no oases in it. If it chooses some place in this Sahara, it is bound to shift its quarters to a more salubrious place.

Source: Writings and Speeches of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Vol. I

This situation also gets reflected in the agony given vent by several prominent political leaders of the Andhra state and also in the comments in the media. For instance:

Kadapa Koti Reddy, an influential leader of the Rayalaseema region, opined that,

In the Andhra State there is no proper place to locate even district level offices; where is the question of finding place for locating

offices for the capital city of the state? (Andhra Patrika: 13-03-1953)

Tanguturi Prakasam, a former Chief Minister of Andhra State, felt that,

All our troubles will be resolved if we get Hyderabad. But how will

we get it? We have to think as to how to work for it.


Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, the then Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra State, was more emphatic about the unsuitability of Kurnool as the capital of Andhra State and about his eagerness to move away out of it. He said:

People are enthusiastically waiting for moving to Hyderabad. Nobody is feeling the pinch of shifting the state’s capital from Kurnool.

We will assure the people of Telangana, if necessary, that their positions in the cabinet and jobs in the government will be protected.

There was a comment in Andhra Patrika on this statement of Sanjeeva Reddy:

This very gentleman threatened to remain in erstwhile Madras State itself if the capital city of Andhra State was not located in Rayalaseema. (Andhra Patrika: 09-08-1954)

Sanjeeva Reddy further said:

We faced many problems in the last two years. There are no facilities for offices. If we have to wait for five more years as

recommended by Fazal Ali, Andhra State will have to face innumerable problems.


Y. Suryanarayana Rao, a prominent congress leader of those days, aired similar views by observing,

We have already spent one crore rupees on the capital city, Kurnool. We are still spending. Even after spending so much, has Kurnool town got a shape suitable for a capital city? Absolutely not. (Andhra Patrika: 29-09-1954)

Andhra government employees are still in Madras as tenants. The officials are worried about providing residential accommodation to them. There is no hope of completing the construction of new buildings for the Secretariat. In addition, the government employees are worried about the educational facilities for their children in Kurnool. (Andhra Patrika: 01-09-1954)

In addition to the observations made by the political leaders, the comments made in the media too are very much revealing. For instance, Andhra Patrika, a leading Telugu daily of the times was categorical in pointing out the absence of even a single suitable place in Andhra for locating its capital city. It observed -

- Visakha: Where is a road on which two lorries can safely cross each other?

- Kakinada: Where are the buildings suitable in shape and number required for the capital city of the state?

- Rajahmundry: Doesn’t have the basic requirements.

- Bezawada: There are more people than the available open place.

- Guntur: Just sufficient for the people there.

- Hyderabad: The one and the only way out.


Further, the States Reorganisation Commission also was conscious of all these facts. It may be recalled that the SRC recommended retention of Telangana as a separate state, listing out a variety of reasons there for. Referring to the arguments put forth by the votaries of Visalandhra, the Commission observed,

This will also solve the difficult and vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra, for the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are very well suited to be the capital of Vishalandhra. (SRC Report: Para 371)

Such was the pathetic plight of Andhra which the present political leadership of that area pretends to forget!

Distortion of Facts:

While these are the facts of history on record, an impression is sought to be created by a section of Andhra leadership that the development of the city of Hyderabad took place only after it became the capital city of Andhra Pradesh.

Can there be a bigger false and absurd claim than this?

The fact is that the plight of erstwhile Andhra state in locating its capital city was mitigated only because of the formation of Andhra Pradesh and giving this fabulous city to it, literally on a silver platter, absolutely free of cost.

The development that has taken place in and around the capital city after the formation of Andhra Pradesh is natural and is comparable to the development that has taken place in other major cities of the country. It is to be realized that at the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was the fifth largest city in the country and even now, it continues to be in the same position. On the other hand, the growth of Visakhapatnam has been far higher and faster than the growth of Hyderabad. Quite often, the per capita income of Visakhapatnam surpasses the per capita income of Hyderabad.

False Claims:

A section of Andhra leadership and big business argue that the city of Hyderabad has been developed by investing here most of the revenue income of the Andhra area. It is therefore to be established as to who has invested here and which money it is. In this regard expenditure incurred by the State Government in the government sector and the investments made by the private sector have to be looked into separately.

Regarding Government’s spending, is there any evidence of diverting Andhra area’s revenue income for spending in the capital city? The facts are quite to the contrary. It was initially established in 1969, by the Lalit and Bhargava Committees, constituted by the Government, to look specifically into this question. Further, the details of region-wise Income and Expenditure furnished to the State Assembly by the then Finance Minister, K. Rosaiah, in March 2007, reestablished this fact.

Further, whatever developmental expenditure is incurred in Hyderabad, it is always reckoned as a part and parcel of the expenditure on Telangana. If the relative positions among the regions regarding the developmental expenditure are to be evaluated, then why not the details of expenditure incurred on all the sectors in all the regions be looked into? Why talk only about Hyderabad?

Coming to the private investment in Hyderabad, it is not any new development that has taken place after the formation of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad has always been the hub of economic activity for ages, attracting investments from all parts of the country. There are Gujarathees, Maharashtrians, Punjabees, Bengalees, kannadigas, Malayalees, Tamilians, Kayasthas, and also Andhras. All of them came and settled down here, much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh. This trend continued even after the formation of Andhra Pradesh. To facilitate their business, they were given quite a few incentives, including vast areas of land, which entirely belong to Telangana, almost free of cost. They have flourished and made fortunes because of the concessions and facilities provided here. They can always continue their business in Hyderabad, under the law of the land, as in any other part of the country. Therefore, the argument that the city of Hyderabad owes its premier position to the contribution of Andhra region is fallacious.

The votaries of united state of Andhra Pradesh very often exhibit their antipathy towards Telangana by suggesting segregation of Hyderabad city from the rest of Telangana under the untenable pretext that the city was developed by them. They want Hyderabad to be made a joint capital in the event of bifurcation of the state or make it a union territory. It is a fantastic nonsense, to say the least. In this context the questions that need to be answered are:

What is the purpose of a capital city?

Is it for the convenience of the people or comforts of the political elite or profits of the businessmen?

If the primary objective is to ensure the convenience of the people, how will a common man from Andhra come to the capital city, situated outside the territory of his own state? From any direction the distance between Hyderabad and the Andhra State is not less than 250 kilometers. Where is the corridor to travel through this distance? In the event of any disturbance or emergency, will not the capital city become inaccessible to the citizens of Andhra area? Then why create such an anomalous and hazardous situation for the common citizens of Andhra area? The aspect relating to the comforts of political elite does not need any discussion. They will be quite comfortable and happy wherever they are.

Now the main argument centers round the business men. They include real estate brokers, big business mafia and the sharks of corporate houses. Is it the interest of these sections that the capital city of a state is meant for?

Dr. BR Ambedkar’s Views

It may not be out of place to recall that a similar claim was put forth by the Gujaratees on the Bombay city when the erstwhile Bilingual Bombay State was bifurcated into the present Maharashtra and Gujarat States. No less a person than Dr. Ambedkar ridiculed the idea by saying that the investors have, no doubt, a right to set up their business in any part of the country; but by doing so, they cannot become owners of that place. He described them as “mortgagees”.

This logic naturally applies to any business house, anywhere in the country, including Hyderabad.

Dr. Ambedkar further asked that if the Bombay city was made a separate state or union territory, where from would it get water and power supply? Will not this logic be applicable to Hyderabad city as well?

He further argued that before entertaining any idea of making Bombay a union territory, one should think of first conferring such status on Madras and Calcutta. The same argument is valid for Hyderabad too.

Cultural Onslaught:

The strategy of Andhra leaders and investors to grab the city of Hyderabad is twofold: one, putting forth fictitious claims on the development of Hyderabad city, for which they are not responsible; and, two, erasing the cultural identity and symbols of heritage forcibly foisting on Hyderabad the symbols of their region.

The identity of Telangana -- its history, culture, language, polity etc.- is eroded because of the deliberate and constant Andhra onslaughts.

One finds, at important places, innumerable statues of only Andhra personalities like N.T. Rama Rao, Kasu Brahmananda Reddy, Damodaram Sanjeevaiah, Puchalapalli Sundaraiah, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Jalagam Vengal Rao etc.. Strangely statues of some more persons who never had anything to do with Hyderabad or Telangana, or even Andhra Pradesh for that matter, are a plenty. They include Tanguturi Prakasam, Potti Sri Ramulu, Alluri Sitarama Raju, Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Chowdary, Raghupati Venkataratnam Naidu, L. V. Prasad, Kattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy etc.

Re-christening places and institutions as Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Vengal Rao Nagar, Potti Sri Ramulu Nagar, Sanjeevaiah Park, Brahmananda Reddy Park, Sundaraiah Park, NTR stadium, NTR Ghat, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy Sagar, Potti Sri Ramulu Telugu University, N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, besides naming structures after Ayyadevara Kaleshwar Rao, Balayogi, Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy is yet another example.

The ruling classes never cared to remember the Telangana stalwarts like K. V. Ranga Reddy, Dasarathi Krishnamacharya, Vattikota Alwar Swamy, Komuram Bhim, Ravi Narayana Reddy, Turrebaz Khan, Shoebulla Khan, Baddam Yella Reddy, Arutla Kamala Devi, Kaloji Narayan Rao and a host of others. Even Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, who was primarily responsible for the merger of Telangana with Andhra state, was also forgotten for a long time. The ongoing debate on Telangana seems to have influenced the State Government to erect his statue recently -- 35 long years after his death. But the place chosen for that is not commensurate with the stature of Burgula and his contribution to the State.

These are the facts of history, geography and polity clubbed with the emotions and sentiments of the people of Telangana!

People of this region, therefore, will never tolerate even the very idea of separating Hyderabad from the rest of Telangana. It will turn out to be an eternal source of friction and unrest with unpredictable consequences.

Judiciary

It might sound incredible; but it is a stark reality, that is, with the

formation of Andhra Pradesh the Telangana Segment of judiciary too

had become a victim of injustice and discrimination. And it continues

to be so, even to this day, in some form or the other.

Seniority of Judges made topsy-turvy

With the merger of Telangana with Andhra, the High Courts of the two

erstwhile states were naturally amalgamated. But the modus operandi of

this amalgamation was formulated in such a way that all the senior most

judges of the High Court of Hyderabad (Telangana) were made juniors to

the junior most judges of the High Court of former Andhra State. Several

senior judges like Justice Qamar Hussain, Justice Manohar Pershad, Jutice

Mohmmed Ansari and Justice P. Jagan Mohan Reddy who were appointed

as the judges of High Court of Hyderabad (Telangana) between 1942 and

1952 were arbitrarily made juniors to the junior most judges of the Andhra

High Court like justice N. D. Krishna Rao and justice Satyanarayana Raju

who were appointed only after 1954 – one of them a few months before the

formation of Andhra Pradesh on 1st November 1956. This glaringly unjust

decision was challenged by Srikishan, a senior barrister from Telangana,

but it was not even allowed to be heard. Consequently, seniors became

juniors and vice versa - all to the disadvantage of senior judges hailing from

the Telangana region. As natural fallout of this discrimination, junior judges

of Andhra could become Chief Justices of Andhra Pradesh High Court and

judges of Supreme Court of India, whereas several senior judges of

Telangana had to retire without getting such opportunities in their careers.

In this process, the Chief Justice of erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad,

Justice Sripathi Rao, lost his position and was unceremoniously transferred

to the High Court of Bombay as an ordinary judge.

Injustice Percolates down the System:

Such unjust and discriminatory policies continue to plague the composition

of the Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. During the last 54

years a total number of 167 judges, belonging to Andhra Pradesh, were

appointed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Out of them only 44

belong to the Telangana region against 123 to the other regions.

This imbalance in the composition of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

and the resultant domination of Andhra Judges is affecting the system at

the lower levels as well. In selecting and appointing district judges,

subordinate judges and munsif magistrates, senior judges of the High Court

have a decisive say. As the Andhra component of judges has a firm grip

on the system, Telangana aspirants for these positions do not get their

legitimate share. The details are shown in the following Table.

Positions in the Administration of Justice in A. P.

A Region wise Brakeup

PositionsTOTAL

Number

Persons from

TELANGANA

Persons From

ANDHRA & RAYALASEMA

Advocate General 1

No one from Telangana has been appointed since the formation of AP State

1

Public Prosecutor

1

No one from Telangana has been appointed since the formation of AP State 1

Addl. Advocates General 3 1 2

Addl. Public Prosecutors 3 1 2

Registrar general 1 - 1

Government Pleaders 36 8 28

Asst. Govt. Pleaders 62 13 49

Standing Counsels 250 20 230

Registrars 6 - 6

Joint Registrars 2 1 1

Deputy Registrars 5 3 2

Assistant Registrars 32 5 27

District Judges 260 30 230

Senior Civil Judges 200 30 170

Junior Civil Judges 430 50 380

Section Officers 112 20 92

Deputy Section Officers 62 15 47

Asst. Section officers 90 25 65

Court Masters 134 40 94

Jr. Assistant examiners 269 40 229

Computer Operator 18 - 18

Attenders (High Court) 607 250 357

This is the kind of glaring injustice inflicted on the Telangana component of

administration of justice. Further, the story does not stop with the

appointment of judges. It pervades the entire system of administration of

justice in Andhra Pradesh.

Post of Advocate General-Permanent Denial to Telangana:

It appears to be unbelievable; but it is a fact.

Right from the formation of the state of Andhra Pradesh to this day,

no one from the Telangana region has been appointed as the

Advocate General of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

This issue was represented to all the successive chief ministers of the

state, but no one cared to give any serious thought to it. On the contrary,

one of the former chief ministers, Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy, went to

the extent of commenting that only those who enjoy the confidence of

the government will be appointed to the position of Advocate General

of the state. Can there be a bigger insult to the practitioners of law of

Telangana?

It would be necessary to know in this context that the Telangana region

offered a galaxy of legal luminaries to the nation. They include judges of

the Supreme Court of India, Chief Justices of High Courts of several other

states, pivotal positions in the Law Commission of India and International

Court of Justice. Further, a distinguished lawyer-turned political leader

from Telangana could become the Union Law Minister. None of them,

while they were practicing lawyers, was found suitable, ironically enough, to

be appointed as the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. They

enjoyed the confidence of the nation but not of the Chief Ministers of

Andhra Pradesh.

Ramifications of Injustice to Judiciary:

This blatantly discriminatory anti-Telangana attitude of the successive Chief

Ministers has many ramifications. The Advocate General plays a crucial

and decisive role in appointing government pleaders, assistant government

pleaders, public prosecutors etc. Thereby, more than 75% of such

positions are always held by non-Telangana lawyers. Similarly, no one

from Telangana is appointed, so far as the chair person of AP State

Administrative Tribunal and State Consumers Forum. Likewise, when

teams of advocates to appear before the River Water Dispute Tribunal are

appointed, mostly, if not solely, persons belonging to Andhra area are

picked. For instance, a team of advocates appointed to argue the case of

Andhra Pradesh before the current Tribunal on the Krishna River Water

Dispute consists of seven advocates; out of them only one is from the

Telangana region. As a result, the interest of Telangana regarding its

legitimate share of the Krishna waters is not taken care of. There are also

instances of these advocates taking the stand openly against the interests

of Telangana.

In this scenario the people of Telangana had, and continue to have,

bitter experiences of denial of justice in several spheres of their lives.

Therefore, are they not justified in questioning that when the judiciary

itself cannot be protected from injustice and discrimination what

would be their fate who looks to the judiciary for justice and fair play?

Telangana Language and Culture

Premeditated Discrimination and Degradation in

Unified State of Andhra Pradesh

1.1 Introduction:

Even after 54 years of geographical merger of two states (Andhra and

Hyderabad States), both regions have not been completely integrated.

There is vast divisiveness in terms of emotions, language, literature and

culture of both the regions.

As we trace the entire 3000 years of history of Telugu speaking people, it is

very clearly found that only for three to four hundred years, both Telangana

and Andhra regions were under the rule of a single kingdom. Due to the

fact that these regions were never together under one kingdom and ruled

by different kings and kingdoms, both the regions of Telangana and Andhra

have developed distinctly different thoughts, experiences, languages,

literature, culture and its overall identity.

In the unified state of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana language, literature,

history and culture are being subjected to massive discrimination and

degradation. While both the regions were merged due to linguistic factors,

unfortunately, even in the context of language, there was no unified feeling

among the people of both the regions.

Language has much deeper role in terms of creating a unique cultural identity. While

describing the affects of colonization on language, literature, history and culture in

Africa, Ngugi wa Thiong'o observed that “blindness to the indigenous voice of Africans

is a direct result of colonization. By removing their native language from their education

they are separated from their history which is replaced by European history in European

languages. This put the lives of Africans more firmly in the control of the colonists”.

Ngugi argued that “colonization was not simply a process of physical force. Rather, the

bullet was the means of physical subjugation while the language was the means of the

spiritual subjugation. Ngugi observed that “language and culture are inseparable, and

therefore the loss of the former results in the loss of the latter”. He further pointed out

that “Language as communication and as culture are then products of each other.

Language carries culture, and culture carries, particularly through orature and literature,

the entire body of values by which we perceive ourselves and our place in the world.

Language is thus inseparable from us as a community of human beings with a specific

form and character, a specific history, a specific relationship to the world”

Ngugi’s observations are so aptly relevant to the context of Telangana. The

Andhra leaders, who led the government of AP, over the years, have

maliciously removed the Telangana language, literature, culture and history

from our education so as to enslave the minds of Telangana People.

Further, they discredited Telangana literature and also made an effort to

devastate the history and cultural identity of Telangana and there by

ascertained the political and economic control on the people of Telangana.

In the unified state of Andhra Pradesh, every government failed to extend

any form of justice to the people of Telangana. Following description will

throw some light on the issues of discrimination and degradation of

Telangana language, literature, history and culture.

1.2 Discrimination towards Telangana Language:

a) The so called literary experts of Andhra region have unilaterally

claimed their language, i.e. Andhra language, as Standard

Language and condemned the Telangana language as an

Ordinary Dialect. So called Standard Language, claimed by Andhra

experts, is actually a dialect that too spoken only in two districts, while

Telangana Language that is spoken in more than nine districts is

degraded as a mere dialect and causing serious humiliation to people

of Telangana.

b) Text books, for schools and colleges, published by government are

completely written in Andhra Language and not even a single word of

Telangana language is used in these text books. If any students write

their examinations in Telangana language, students are deprived of

their due share of marks. Hence, both the students and teachers of

Telangana are subjected to unnecessary additional effort to learn the

others language i.e., Andhra language.

c) While speaking in Telugu, if there is a usage of Sanskrit and English

words, it is projected as a great achievement. However, if there is a

sparing usage of Urdu words, it is ridiculed as “Thourakyandhram” or

Thuraka Telugu” (Thuraka means Muslims, which means Muslim

Telugu).

d) Telugu film industry, largely promoted by Andhra Capitalists, Writers,

Actors, Directors, is immensely humiliating the people of Telangana

by characterizing Telangana language as an exclusive language for

villains and comedians.

e) In the name of entertainment, Telangana Language and culture is

poorly projected by private and government TV channels and Radio

channels,.

f) In most of the films and other programs, characters of Telangana

leaders and their Telangana Language are shown as laughing stocks

demeaning the stature of Telangana Leaders. Former Chief Minister

Sri T Anjaiah, a Telangana leader was subjected to such a serious

embarrassment continuously by one of the news papers.

g) Unfortunately, Government never encouraged and rewarded

Telangana writers to promote Telangana Language.

1.3 Neglect of Telangana History:

a) Government has not made significant efforts to take up excavations

to explore the Telangana history, heritage, culture and the

archeological monuments of Shatavahana dynasty.

b) Despite uncovering few historical and archeological monuments in

Telangana Region, every effort was made to suppress the history and

heritage of Telangana and only projected the history of Andhra

region..

c) .For example, in the year 1942, during the regime of Nizam,

excavations were taken up in Kondapuram, Medak District and

discovered the historical evidences such as the signs of Buddhism,

coins, utensils etc. But, ironically, even after sixty years, these

excavations are not completed. Whatever the uncovered, historical

evidences and monuments, are not properly protected in a museum.

Andhra officers, who are made responsible for excavations, are

openly shifting the historical evidences and monuments to

Amaravathi, Guntur district and there is none to curtail such a fraud.

d) Kotilingala in Karimnagar district was the capital city for Shatavahana

dynasty. During the year 1970-74, excavations were held in

Kotilingala and Doolikatta and uncovered a lot of historical evidences

and archeological monuments. Unfortunately, in spite of repeated

appeals, these excavations were stopped with a lame excuse of lack

of funds.

e) Neither Government of AP nor Tourism Corporation made sincere

efforts to protect the rich heritage and culture of Telangana. Several

historical Telangana monuments such as forts, buildings, temples are

being neglected by government. For example, there is no action

taken by the police and archeological department, when the main

doors of Tekmal and Medak forts are stolen by miscreants.

f) Government is immune to several representations to convert the forts

of Yeligandula, Bhongir, Ramgiri, Medak, and Nizamabad into

tourism centers. Historical temples such as Ramappa Temple, 1000

pillar temple. Keesara are neglected by government not being

actively renovated and unfortunately they are on the verge of total

deterioration.

g) Government, deliberately most often, entrusted the responsibility to

Andhra experts to author the text books. As a result, Andhra authors

have always neglected and not appropriately incorporated the

Telangana history and culture in the text syllabus. For example, in the

eighth class social sciences text book, there is a detail presentation of

Dhavaleshwaram Barrage, but not even single mention of

Sriramsagar project. This is a clear illustration of their deliberate

discrimination and distorted presentation of facts. Even the books

published by NCERT and SCRT do not have the details of Telangana

history.

h) Even in Telangana, there were several freedom fighters and they

were never projected appropriately in our history books. For example,

histories of freedom fighters, who fought against Britishers namely

Turebajh Khan, Ramji Gond and Komaram Bheem who fought

against Nizam, were never incorporated as part of the text book

syllabus.

i) Even in the books published by government agencies such as Telugu

Academy, the historical facts of Telangana are distorted. Modern AP

history published by Telugu Academy cunningly projected Telangana

movement as selfish and opportunist movement, while Andhra

movement was presented as progressive movement.

j) Mallinatha Suri is the only Telugu poet who wrote comments on all

the five maha kavyas of Sanskrit including Sanjivini Vyakhaya on

Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsam. He is otherwise known as `Vyakhyana

Chakravarthi.’ He was born during the year 1150 B.C. in Kolichelama

village, just 15 km from Medak town, now known as Kolcharam. After

so much of persuasion, Government took over his dilapidated

building more than two decades ago to construct a memorial and set-

up a bronze statue. But so far no progress has been made and it is a

clear reflection of the extent of respect that the Andhra rulers

demonstrate towards Telangana poets.

k) Bammera Potana (1450-1510) was born in Bammera, a village

twenty miles away from Warangal. But, deliberately, people of Andhra

region taken up a controversy that Pothana belonged to Ontimetta of

Cudapah, but not of Bammera. Thirty experts, appointed by Andhra

Pradesh Sahithya Academy, did immense research and proved with

all facts that Pothana belonged to Warangal district only. Even then,

ex chief minister, encouraged to conduct Pothana celebrations in

Cudapah district to distort the history of Telangana while Telangana

leaders raised their protest against such celebrations.

l) While our country got the freedom on August, 15, 1947, people of

Telangana got the freedom from Nizam only on September, 17, 1948.

In order to signify the historical importance of the Telangana freedom

movement, there has been a demand to government to officially

celebrate Septermber 17th as an Independence Day for people of

Telangana. But so far, government has not responded positively and

people of Telangana are deprived of official celebrations of their

illustrious freedom struggle.

1.4 Telangana Cultural Suppression:

a) Over the years, there has been a serious attack on Telangana self

respect by the people of Andhra. Telangana people are ridiculed that

there is no specific culture of Telangana; that Telangana language is

not suitable for any literary purposes and even made a mockery of

festivals, dress and the living patterns.

b) Even before the formation of unified state, Telangana and its culture

was belittled by the people of Andhra and Telangana was called as

NIZAMANDHRA. During the year 1934, one of the Andhra poets,

wrote an article with utter contempt on Telangana titled as

“NIZAMANDHRA LO TELUGU KAVULU POOJYAM” (It means There

are no Telugu poets in Telangana). As a strong response to it, one of

the famous poets of Telangana, Suravaram Prathap Reddy, compiled

and published the writings of 350 poets. But unfortunately, his

writings were not adequately projected,

c) Bathukamma Panduga (Bathukamma Festival) is the largest and

legendary festival of Telangana. It was started centuries ago and still

celebrated as grand cultural event in this place. The legend of

Batukamma Panduga is mentioned in one of the historical texts

scripted in Telugu. But such a large festival is neither recognized by

the government nor does the government even extend the official

greetings to the people of Telangana on the day of Bathukamama

Panduga. Unfortunately, government media (Doordarshan and All

India Radio) does not give any importance to cover this legendary

festival. Further, reflecting the sheer discrimination, Bathukamma

Panduga is not even exhibited in national youth festivals and other

programs held by government.

d) Holi is regarded as one of the ancient and important festivals to the

people of Telangana. Holi is celebrated with lot of enthusiasm,

energy and happiness, irrespective of caste, creed, sex, age etc, by

sprinkling colors on each other. In the year 2006, a group of

Telangana professors, intellectuals, writers were obstructed and

threatened by the local police inspector (belongs to Andhra Region)

and went to an extent of even detaining them. This is a clear incident

of how intolerant are the officers from Andhra region towards

Telangana region and its culture.

e) It is so pathetic to note that of all the statues at the Tankbund, one

would not find a single statue of Telangana legendary personalities.

There were several Great people of Telangana who deserve to have

their statues such as eminent poet like Dasharadhi, Padmavibhushan

award recipient Kaloji, Vattikota Alwaru Swami, man who lead the

Library movement and others. Despite several representations made

by Telangana leaders on this issue, government ignored and

downplayed the historical and legendary personalities of Telangana,

f) Even though Telangana leaders held the prestigious positions such

as chief ministers and prime minister etc, but as a mark of respect to

them, no single garden or public institutions are named after them.

Where as almost all the gardens (NTR Park, Sanjeevaiah Park, Kasu

Brahmananda Reddy Park etc); universities (NG Ranga Agriculture

University, Potti Sriramulu Telugu University, NTR Health University)

and even stadiums and streets were named after the leaders of

Andhra such as Balayogi, Sanjeeva Reddy, Kotla Vijaya Bhaskar

Reddy etc. The same Government which named new universities in

Andhra region after poets such as Nannaiah and Vemana, refused to

name the new universities of Telangana after Pothana and Somanna

who were renowned Telangana poets. This is yet another clear sign

of prejudice towards Telangana.

g) Unified state always played a partisan role and discriminated

Telangana in terms of promoting literary and cultural activities. While

Andhra cultural and literary organizations are funded indiscriminately,

when it comes to Telangana organizations, government always

refused to offer the right share of funds.

h) Most of the students of Telangana, who belong to poor and deprived

sections, depend on libraries for their regular studies and competitive

examinations. However, government deliberately does not allocate

adequate funds to the libraries of Telangana and ensure that the

relevant books are available. Most of the times, library staff of

Telangana region are not paid their salaries regularly. The

department of public libraries is always biased enough to buy only the

books of Andhra writers and publishers. Further, it is disgusting to

note that historical libraries (Bollarum, Secunderabad, Shalibanda

etc), which contributed to cultural growth of Hyderabad, are

deteriorating and on the verge of collapse. But the department does

not have any interest to protect such old libraries of Telangana.

i) It is disheartening to note that most of the government schools in

Telangana, particularly in Hyderabad, are in miserable condition

without pucca buildings, basic infrastructure and other amenities.

Andhra rulers are making efforts to unlawfully convert the

Government school lands into real estate projects (For example

Chaderghat School Land) and some of the school lands ( for example

Bollarum School Lands) are being illegally occupied by land grabbers

and Government is a mere spectator and not making any effort to

protect the lands.

1.5 Conclusion:

2. Historically it has been proved that if any society has

experienced the everlasting development in terms of its

literature, culture and heritage, it happened only when the

rulers were committed enough to encourage, promote and

support such growth.

3. However, it has been proved in more than several occasions

that Andhra rulers are determined to disrespect, degrade and

destroy the cultural identity of Telangana.

4. In this context, the only avenue to safeguard Telangana

language and literature; to preserve the oldest traditions,

heritage and cultural identity of Telangana; and to protect the

self respect of Telangana poets, writers, artists, leaders and

others is through political empowerment and self governance.

5. Hence, we make earnest appeal to restore the separate

statehood for the Telangana region and help us to preserve

one of the oldest and traditional cultures of India.

FAQsFrequently Asked Questions and Answers

The demand for a separate state of Telangana is naturally raising a number of questions. Some are raised out of ignorance, some out of bias and some out of concern for maintaining status quo. In any case these questions need to be answered. Some of them are answered here:

1. Why the issue of separate Telangana is being raised again and again?

The demand of the people of Telangana for a separate state is not a new development. It was voiced much before the formation of Andhra Pradesh and continues to be raised even thereafter. The reason for the resistance of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra was fear of neglect, injustice and exploitation in the enlarged state; and, the reason for their reluctance to continue in the present State is the actual experience of becoming victims of neglect, injustice exploitation.

2. Is it not a bogey raised, off and on, by the disgruntled politicians?

If it were to be so, how could the demand sustain itself for nearly five decades? Opportunistic elements do infiltrate in to any movement of the people; but such aberrations cannot undermine, every time, the genuine aspirations of the people. When formulations ranging from the extreme left to the extreme right of the political spectrum support the demand for a separate state, in some form or the other, does it not reflect popular urge of the people? Can it be brushed aside for ever? What about the voice being constantly raised by the intelligentsia, practitioners of learned professions, students and youth who do not have any vested interests in practical politics? Is it of no consequence? Can it be ignored just like that?

3. Is there no alternative to the demand for a separate state?

All possible alternatives have already been experimented with – The Gentlemen’s Agreement, The All Party Accord, The Eight Point Formula, The Five Point Formula, The Six Point Formula and what not? Were they not experiments to safeguard the interests of Telangana within the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh? Has any of these agreements been implemented? Has any of these solemn pledges been redeemed? Has any of the judicial pronouncements, including the verdict of Supreme Court of India, been honoured? Now, what else is left to be further experimented with?

4. What did the Chief Ministers who belonged to this region do while they were in power?

P. V. Narasimha Rao, M. Chenna Reddy and T. Anjaiah did become Chief Ministers of the state. But what was the tenure of all of them put together? It was hardly 5 ½ years, in the State’s history of 54 years; that too, in bits and pieces - to be precise - in four spells and each spell spanning a few months. It should be noted that J. Vengal Rao was a migrant from Coastal area. He never came out of his moorings and he never identified himself with the hopes and aspirations of people of Telangana. Some of his decisions caused immense damage to the region.

P. V. Narasimha Rao made a feeble attempt in 1972 to implement the verdict of Supreme Court validating the Mulki Rules. The verdict was in favour of Telangana. But the reaction from the other regions was so instantaneous and so wild that in the process P. V. Narasimha Rao lost his Chief Minister ship and the Telangana region lost all its safeguards. Even the verdict of the highest judicial authority of the country was nullified. M. Chenna Reddy known as a strong man of his times, was hounded out by communal violence instigated and organized by Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy.

This can happen to any leader from Telangana in that position. Because, their survival depends upon the support of the area which has a numerical majority in the political setup and has greater money power to influence the political process and administrative machinery. The problem, therefore, lies essentially in the nature of political equations between the developed and backward regions, and not necessarily in the persons holding positions of power. The fact is that no political party allows the Telangana leadership to grow; and by any chance it grows, it will not be allowed to survive. The States Reorganization Commission eloquently commented upon this aspect.

Even if it is assumed that the leaders of a region becoming chief ministers can contribute to the development of that region, then why do the people of Rayalaseema complain of backwardness? This State has been ruled for more than two and a half decades by the chief ministers hailing from that region. And, that too, not by ordinary men, but by stalwarts like N. Sanjeeva Reddy (twice), D. Sanjeevaiah, K. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy (twice) and N. Chandrababu Naidu (twice) and Y. S. Rajasekhar Reddy (more than once).

5. Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra also are backward. What is so special about Telangana to ask for a separate state on this score?

It is true that these two regions also are relatively backward. They too have been, like Telangana, victims of neglect. But Telangana has an additional problem i.e. exploitation in the form of diversion of its resources, which legitimately belong to it, for the development of other regions. Best - or worst - examples are diversion of river waters, coal and other natural resources, financial resources, employment opportunities and so on. This has been going on unabated. The other two regions do not have such problem. That Rayalaseema is relatively better developed than Telangana in several aspects, especially education, is a different story. So is the case with regard to industrial development of Visakhapatnam in North Coastal Andhra.

Further, Telangana can be a viable unit as a separate state and can be better developed. This was also endorsed by the SRC. Above all, the people of the region want to have it. Why should the people of Telangana keep quiet even if their counterparts in Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra are contented with whatever they have?

6. How many smaller states can this country have?

More than half of the states in the country are smaller than Telangana. They are: Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal. Further, West Bengal and Kerala also are smaller than Telangana in geographical area. Then why all doubts about and objections to conferring statehood on Telangana, which would be the largest of the smaller states in the country?

7. What about linguistic unity and cultural identity?

Next to Hindi, largest number of people in India speaks Telugu. If there can be nine Hindi speaking states with the possibility of some more coming up, what is wrong in having more than one state for Telugus? It may be recalled that the SRC recommended the creation of separate Telangana state in addition to the already existing Andhra state. The SRC, in fact, never wanted language to be the sole criterion for reorganizing Indian states. The most intriguing part of the whole argument of the so-called linguistic unity is that the Telangana dialect is ridiculed with impunity especially by the cine field and mass media. Who controls them is an open

secret. Can such things go on without the connivance of ruling classes? Otherwise what hell the agencies expected to censor films and TV serials are doing? In such humiliating conditions what is the significance of linguistic and cultural unity? Has it not become totally meaningless?

8. Are the Naxalites responsible for the backwardness of Telangana?

This question has become some sort of a political slogan of the ruling classes. Therefore, it needs to be examined dispassionately. While doing so one need not agree with the philosophy of Naxalites and certainly need not endorse their acts of violence. The issue on hand is different. If the argument of the government is based on facts, it should be substantiated with empirical evidence. How does one explain the following facts?

- Mahabubnagar district is less affected by the Naxalite Movement as compared to the North Telangana districts. Then how is it that Mahabubnagar is more backward than all the districts of North Telangana? It is not only the most backward district in the region and the state but is also one of the 200 backward districts listed in the entire country.

- Kothagudem Thermal Plant and Ramagundam Thermal Plant are in the areas where the Naxalites were very active for more than three and a half decades. How is it that various stages of development of Kothagudem Thermal Plant are being completed ahead of the schedule? How is it that Ramagundam Thermal Plant is getting awards year after year for its good performance?- The entire coal belt is in Naxal-effected areas of the Telangana region. The coal produced here is transported on a large scale to other regions without any hindrance. Have the Naxalites obstructed this activity any time?

- Even a private sector industry, the AP Rayon’s, is functioning well in the midst of Warangal forests - the nerve centre of Naxalite activity. How is it functioning if Naxals are a hindrance?

- Visakhapatnam district also is an important centre for Naxals. How is it that Vizag has emerged as a major industrial town not only in the state but also in the entire country?

- Besides not starting any new industries in the region, several industries established by the much-maligned Nizam have been closed one after the other. Examples: Azamjahi Mills, Sir Silk Factory, Anthargaon Spinning Mills, Republic Forge and DBR Mills. The Allwyn factory and the Nizam Sugar Factory have already been sold. Are the Naxalites responsible for the closure of all these industries?

- The Telangana Movement of 1968-69 was a massive revolt of the people against the exploitation of the region. Where were the Naxalites then?

It should be realized that the growth and spread of Naxalite Movement in Telangana is a consequence of backwardness of the region and not a cause for its backwardness. But the powers that be are trying to reverse the causal relationship. The people of the region have a feeling, and justifiably so, that the ruling sections will see to it that the issues emanating from the Naxalite Movement are never attended to with the seriousness and earnestness they deserve. They have a vested interest in doing so. They can use it as a pretext to further neglect the region in the realm of development.

TELANGANA RASHTRA SAMITHIViews and Suggestions Submitted to

The Committee for Consultations on the situation in Andhra Pradesh

(In Four Volumes)

Demand for

Telangana State

VOLUME – II

(IRRIGATION)

ANNEXURES

LIST OF ANNEXURES

Sl.No:

Particulars:Annexure

No:

1. Bachawat Tribunal’s Opinion on Irrigation facilities in the Hyderabad State

I

2.Bachawat Tribunal’s Opinion on the argument of Council of Andhra Pradesh with regard to Tungabhadra Left Canal extension Project

II

3. Bachawat Tribunal’s observations in respect of Jurala Project

III

4. Agreement of June, 1944 between Madras and Hyderabad IV

5. Allocation of Water by the Tribunal to KC Canal and RDS V

6. Utilization of Waters by RDS VI

7. Government on closure of construction Sluices VIA

8. Region wise allocation of Krishna Waters VII

9. Principles laid down by International Institute of Law on Water allocations

VIIA

10. G.O. No. 77, dated 15-04-1999 regarding supply of Jurala water to RDS tail end Ayacut

VIII

11. Supreme Court’s observations on the Petition of Atmalinga Reddy

IX

12. Govt.’s Order extending the Left Bank Canal of NS Project to serve Tiruvur and Nuzvid areas

X

13. Recommendations of the Members of the Committee on Estimates on ayacut of Left Bank Canal of NS Project

XI

14.Recommendations of the Members of the Committee on Estimates on Dropping the Left Canal into Paleru Reservoir

XII

15. Govt.’s orders dated 01-12-1969 on restoring the ayacut of Left Canal of NS Project and other orders

XIII

16. Recommendations of the Members of the Committee on Estimates on restricting the area under lift irrigation

XIV

17. Bachawat Tribunal’s Directions in respect of according equal priority to all Projects

XV

18. Bachawat Tribunal’s Directions on Srisailam Project with respect to keeping it as a Hydro Electric Project

XVI

19. Maharashtra Govt.’s argument on allowing water for evaporation loss in Srisailam Reservoir

XVII

20. List of Irrigation Projects dependent on Srisailam flows XVIII

21. List of balancing Reservoirs storing surplus flows on XIX

Telugu Ganga Project

22. National Water Policy & HelSinki Rules with regard to transfer of water outside the Basin

XX

23. Bachawat Tribunal’s observations with respect to MDDL of Srisailam

XXA

24. G.O. No. 69, dated 15-06-1996 keeping MDDL of Srisailam at 834 ft.

XXI

25. Suggestions of Bachawat Tribunal in improving the efficiency in Power productions of Srisailam Reservoir

XXII

26. G.O. No. 107, dated 28-09-2004 increasing the MDDL of Srisailam Reservoir to 854 ft.

XXIII

27. G.O.s 170, 233 & 3 regarding diverting flows from Srisailam Reservoir through Pothireddipadu HR

XXIIIA

28. Paper cuttings on Dummugudem-tail pond link Canal proposal

XXIV

29. Bachawat Tribunal’s observations on allocating waters to IInd Crop of Krishna Delta

XXIVA

30. Irrigation potential achieved under Right & Left Canals of NS Project

XXV

31. Details of particulars of Right Bank & Left Bank Canals of NS Project

XXVI

32.Discrimination between Left Bank & Right Bank Canal farmers with regard to operational Charges of lifting schemes

XXVIA

33. Comparison of Budget provisions between Telugu Ganga & SLBC

XXVIB

34. Admission on slow progress on SLBC in the Annual Budget 1996-97

XXVII

35. Inability of Government to provide funds to Pochampad as indicated in the Budget Speech

XXVIIA

36. Comparison of figures of Pochampad & Nagarjunasagar: XXVIIB

37. Minutes of the meeing of Sr. Engineers regarding the Irrigation Potential created under SRSP Project:

XXVIII

38. Comments of CAG on SRSP Stage-I XXVIIIA

39. Publicity of Govt. on Pranahitha-Chevella link Project: XXVIIIB

40. G.O. No. 557, dated 27-06-2005, curtailing the ayacut of Pranahitha-Chevella Project

XXVIIIC

41. Paper cutting on Chief Ministers displeasure XXVIIID

42. G.O.s on Pranahitha-Chevella Project XXIX

43. G.O.s on Dummugudem-NS tail pond & Pranahitha-Chevella issued on 16-05-2007

XXX

44. Paper cutting on opposition’s ire on Dummugudem-NS Project

XXXA

45. G.O. issued on Singur Project at the instance of KCR XXXI

46. Findings of the 9th Report of the Committee of Petitions in respect of yield of Nizamsagar Project

XXXII

47. Views of Sri KV Srinivas Rao’s Committee on diversion of Manjeera Water

XXXIII

48. G.O.No. 131, dated 25-07-2005 on Singur Project XXXIV

49. G.O.No. 272, dated 07-10-1993 on Singur Project XXXIVA

50. G.O.No. 190, dated 12-04-1980 on Singur Project XXXIVB

51. G.O.No. 93, dated 24-02-1990 on Singur Project XXXIVC

52. G.O.No. 10, dated 02-01-2009 on Singur Project XXXIVD

53. G.O.No. 1000, dated 22-12-2009 on Singur Project XXXIVE

54. Ministry of Water Resources’ views on clearing the Inchampally & Polavaram Projects

XXXV

55. Sources of Irrigation across the three regions of AP XXXVI

56. G.O. No.34, dated 09-02-2007 on Micro Irrigation XXXVII

57. Excerpts from the Budget speech (1987-88) regarding dropping of Krishna Waters into KC Canal

XXXVIII

58. Translated version of advertisement issued by Govt. of AP on Jalayagnam

XXXVIIIA

59. Comments of Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee on Irrigation facilities in Telangana

XXXIX

60. Statement of Dr. Marri Chenna Reddy on Canal Irrigation in Telangana

XXXX

61. U.O. Note of planning & local administration department regarding the gap irrigation between Andhra & Telangana

XXXXI

62.Comment of Sub-Committee on Planning of AP Regional Committee regarding difference in expenditure of both the regions

XXXXII

63. Comments of Indian Irrigation commission 1901-03 on utility of Irrigation in Telangana

XXXXIII

List of Irrigation Projects, to which be visits by Hon’ble Members of Sri Krishna Committee are requested.

S.No: Name of the Project: District:Reference to Page No.

of the Report

GODAVARI BASIN

1. Sriramsagar Project, Stage-I Karimnagar &Warangal

25

2. Sriramsagar Project, Stage-II Warangal & Nalgonda

26

3. Ghanpur Anicut Medak 35

KRISHNA BASIN

4. R.D.S. Anicut Mahabubnagar 09

5. Sunkesula Barrage Kurnool 42

6. Pothireddipadu Head Regulator Kurnool 18

7. Nagarjunasagar DamLeft Canal, Right Canal

Nalgonda, & Guntur

13

8. A.M.R. Project Nalgonda 44

9. Kinnerasani Project Khammam 38

IRRIGATION

One of the major grievances of the people of Telangana has, all along been, and continues to be, the raw deal meted out to the region regarding the allocation and utilization of river waters. It is, however, not an unexpected development. It has happened as was feared at the time of merging Telangana with Andhra. The States Reorganization Commission also noted this fact by observing,

When plans for future development are taken into account, Telangana fears that the claims of this area may not receive adequate consideration in Vishalandhra. The Nandikonda and Kushtapuram (Godavari) projects are, for example, among the most important which Telangana or country as a whole has undertaken. Irrigation in the coastal deltas of these two great rivers is, however, also being planned. Telangana, therefore, does not wish to lose its present independent rights in relation to the utilization of the waters of the Krishna and the Godavari.


Inspite of all such warning signals from the SRC and the resistance of the people, the Telangana region was forcibly merged with the Andhra State, with an assurance of justice and fair play. But, as feared, Telangana became a victim of broken promises. On the irrigation front, several major and medium irrigation projects planned by the then Government of Hyderabad were either abandoned or mutilated or kept in unending abeyance. And the consequence is the present scenario. It was aptly

summarized by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT), popularly known as Bachawat Tribunal, constituted by the Government of India in early 1970s for allocation of Krishna Waters between the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal observed:

The area (Telangana) which we are considering for irrigation formed part of Hyderabad State, and had there been no division of that State there were better chances for the residents of this area to get irrigation facilities in Mahabubnagar District. We are of the opinion that this area should not be deprived of the benefit of irrigation on account of the reorganization of States.

(KWDT Report:Page178)

What more evidence is needed for the damage done to the Telangana region in the field of irrigation because of its merger with Andhra?

More Details can be seen hereunder:

1) Projects Abandoned:

Several Projects contemplated by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad, some of which were under execution, aimed at irrigating several lakhs of acres were abandoned. They are;

Tungabhadra (LBC) Extension;

Bheema Project;

Upper Krishna (RBC Extension);

Godavari Multipurpose Project;

Inchampally Project;

Devanur Project.

2) Projects Truncated and Mutilated:

SRSP: Survey made in 1959. Foundation laid in 1963 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Even after fifty years, the progress is limping and the work is yet to be completed;

Flood Flow Canal: Survey was done in 1980s. Cleared in 1996.

Construction started in 2004. Progress of work very slow; yet to be completed;

Pranahita: Surveyed in 1970. Inter State Agreement arrived at in 1978. Work not yet started, even after 32 years;

Lendi: Agreement with Maharashtra Government reached in 1975. The Dam has already been completed by

Maharashtra Government. Canal work yet to be taken up by the Andhra Pradesh Government.

Lower Penganga: Agreement with Maharashtra reached in 1975.

Work not yet commenced, because of non allocation of funds by Andhra Pradesh.

Yellampally: Sanctioned in 1997. Work progressing at snails pace.

Davadula: Sanctioned in 2001. Announced to be completed in 18 months. It is a decade by now, but not even 1/3rd of the work is completed;

Jurala: Construction started in 1976. Work is yet to be completed, even after 34 years.

Bheema LI: Survey was done in 1983. CWC clearances obtained. The work is yet to be completed.

Kalwakurthy: Survey was done in 1984. Work commenced in 2004. A substantial part of the Project is yet to be completed.

Nettempadu: It was sanctioned in 1991 but work on it commenced after 13 years, Project is still incomplete;

SLBC Tunnel: Sanctioned in 1981. 29 years have rolled by, the work done so far is not even 10%;

AMRP: Work started in 1995. Even after fifteen years, progress is still limping;

3) Neglect of Projects inherited from Hyderabad State:

Nizamsagar: The ayacut reduced from 2.75 lakh to 1.00 lack acres

RDS: Contemplated to irrigate 87, 500 acres. But not more than 30,000 acres are irrigated

Kadam: Ayacut reduced from 68,000 acres to 30,000 acres

Upper Manair: It is now actually a dead Project

Koilsagar: Contemplated capacity is 3.9 TMC. Actual utilization is only 1.6 TMC.

Dindi: Contemplated capacity is 3.7 TMC. Actually utilization is only 1.6 TMC.

Ghanpur anicut:Designed to irrigate 30,000 acres, but catering to needs of less then 10,000 acres.

4) Regional Bias:

Sriramsagar Project (SRSP) on Godavari and Jurala Project on Krishna are the only two major projects that are meant exclusively for Telangana. They were started decades ago, but are yet to be completed, because of the niggardly attitude of the State Government regarding the funding of these projects.

Whereas, work on Projects taken up much later in Andhra area is progressing with jet speed. For instance: Pulichinthala Project and Pothireddipadu Head Regulator.

Telugu Ganga Project on the right bank of Srisailam Project (Andhra area) has already taken a massive shape.

On the contrary the SLBC tunnel on the left bank of Srisailam Project (Telangana area) is yet to come out of its very preliminary stage.

SRSP Stage-II and Flood Flow Canal Projects in Telangana area have been given all clearances by the Government of India and the CWC. But the progress of work is very slow, due to inadequate allocation of funds.

Whereas the work on Projects in the Andhra area which do not have proper clearances from the Government of India and the CWC is progressing with enormous speed. Projects like Polavaram and Pothireddipadu Head Regulator come under this category.

A number of Projects have been taken up in Andhra area by utilizing regenerated flow of water.

But no such project is contemplated in Telangana.

Figures are deliberately inflated while showing the areas irrigated under the projects in Telangana. For instance, SRSP is able to irrigate only about 5 lakh acres, but the Government claims it as 10 lakh acres.

On the contrary, in the Krishna and Godavari Deltas of Andhra area, extent of land irrigated is always far more than what the Government shows.

The Stark Realities:

Telangana is encircled by two major rivers of south India i.e., Krishna and Godavari. Within the state of Andhra Pradesh, 68.5% of catchment area of river Krishna and 69% of catchment area of river Godavari are in the Telangana region. In addition, most of the tributaries of these rivers traverse its length and breadth. If waters of these rivers flowing through the region are utilized, almost every acre of cultivable land available in Telangana could be provided with assured irrigation facilities and every village could be provided with assured drinking water facilities. But Telangana has been denied of its rightful share in the river waters by the successive governments for over more than half a century, irrespective of the political parties and leaders in power.

River Krishna

While determining the share of waters of river Krishna among the three riparian states, i.e. Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, the

Bachawat Tribunal allocated 811 TMC of water to Andhra Pradesh, besides the freedom to use surplus water. The allocation of water among different regions of the State has, however, been on the basis of Projects considered by the Tribunal. If catchment area is taken as the principal criterion for allocation of waters between different regions of the state, as is normally done between different states of the country, Telangana should get 68.5% of the 811 TMC. If cultivable areas in the river basin, rainfall, subsoil levels of water, backwardness of the region etc. also are taken into account, Telangana region would be entitled to not less than 70% of the total quantum of water allocated to the state. But the allocation made for the projects in the Telangana region was only around 35%. If the actual utilization of water is taken into account, it is only about 10 to 11%. As a result, out of 811 TMC of assured water, besides another 100 to 150 TMC of surplus water of the River Krishna utilized in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana accounts hardly for 70 to 100 TMC on an average.

Consequently, out of nearly 35 lakh acres being irrigated under the projects built on river Krishna, hardly 5 lakh acres are benefited in the Telangana region and the rest in the other regions.

River Godavari

The Bachawat Tribunal allocated 1480 TMC of Godavari water to Andhra Pradesh; and half of this water is yet to be utilized. The Coastal Andhra region has been the major beneficiary of the water already utilized. Under the Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage in Dhawaleswaram alone more than 10 lakh acres of land is getting irrigation facilities with nearly the same acreage in the second crop. But in the Telangana region, the area irrigated with the Godavari waters is not even 5 lakh acres. Therefore, the people of this region demand that the remaining water still available in Godavari should be utilized mostly, if not solely, for the benefit of Telangana region. The

government has been making only promises, day in and day out on this score, but nothing has been done significantly so far, and is not likely to be done in near future. The real intention of the ruling sections is to divert the untapped water of river Godavari to Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions by interlinking Godavari and Krishna Rivers, thereby depriving the Telangana region of its due share in the Godavari waters as well.

Regional Disparities

Because of the factors enumerated above, the benefit of irrigation through the canal system under major and medium irrigation projects is accruing substantially, i.e. around 82%, to the Coastal Andhra region, while the share of Telangana is just abut18%.

While this is the scenario with regard to canal irrigation, the situation regarding the other two sources of irrigation i.e. tanks, as also wells, is equally bad.

Tank Irrigation

At the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh the area irrigated under a vast net work of tanks in the Telangana region was more than 12 lakh acres. This net work of tanks was developed over a period of four to five centuries. After the formation Andhra Pradesh, the state Government claims to have spent, during the last 54 years, several thousands of crores of rupees for the maintenance and development of minor irrigation facilities. Therefore, the area under Tank Irrigation should have substantially increased. But it is going down steeply year after year and now stands at hardly at 5 lakh acres.

It has happened so, because the silt accumulated in the tanks is not removed, breached tanks are not repaired and some of the tanks that were operational have been deliberately damaged to promote urbanization in and around the major towns and cities especially the capital city of Hyderabad. In this process small and marginal farmers became helpless, abandoned cultivation and sold their lands in distress, at a throw away price, to the rich migrants from Coastal Andhra. These lands became a goldmine for the migrant settlers to do the real estate business. Development of areas in the name of Film City, Hi-Tech City, East City and so on has thrown the local people not only out of their vocations, but also out of their homes.

Well Irrigation

In this situation the farmers of Telangana are left with only one alternative i.e., well irrigation. But the well irrigation has many disadvantages as compared to canal irrigation. Canal irrigation is ensured by the government by spending on construction of dams, digging of canals and supplying water to the fields every season. The entire cost is borne by the government i.e. spending tax-payers money. In return the farmer pays about 200 to 250 rupees per acre per annum as water charges. It is extremely negligible when compared to the huge amounts spent by the government. This is necessary to support agriculture sector in any region or in any state for that matter. Therefore, no one will grudge this. But the same facility is not extended to a majority of farmers in Telangana who depend mostly on well irrigation. The farmer will have to pay from his pocket for sinking well and for buying pump-set etc. In addition, he is required to pay power tariff which he is, however, exempted from for the time being. But there is no guarantee of is continuance in future. He has to also incur huge expenses on getting the water pumps repaired as they get frequently damaged because of erratic fluctuations in voltage. As a result, a

farmer in the Telangana region depending on well irrigation is compelled to spend huge amounts on recurring expenses in addition to capital investment on sinking well and installing pump-set. It is, thereby, a self financed scheme of development, whereas, most of the farmers in Coastal Andhra get water at a heavily subsidised rate of 200 to 250 rupees per acre per annum besides not spending anything on the infrastructure. It is evidently a public funded development.

How can and how long this unjust disparity can be tolerated?

The Jala Yagnam:

The policies being pursued by the present government of the State are adding fuel to the fire. The so called Jala Yagnam is only a mask to cover the evil designs, causing further damage to Telangana. The controversial Pothireddipadu Project is aimed at illegally diverting Krishna waters to the non-basin area in the Rayalaseema region, without meeting the legitimate requirements of the Krishna basin area in Telangana. Similarly, the unauthorized construction of Polavaram Project is essentially aimed at siphoning of Godavari waters to Coastal Andhra. It is further planned to stretch the benefit to outside Godavari basin in that region, thereby, depriving the Telangana region of its rightful share in the Godavari waters as well.

The propaganda indulged in, day in and day out, by the State Government regarding the number of acres proposed to be given irrigation facilities in Telangana, under the so called Jala Yagnam is a travesty of truth. It has issued an order according to which bulk of the area in the Telangana region would be covered by the sprinkler and drip irrigation system. The government maintains that under this system one TMC of water would be

enough to irrigate between 15 to 20 thousand acres of land in Telangana. But, the same government maintains that in the other regions, especially the Coastal Andhra, one TMC of water can irrigate only 3700 acres. The State Government expects the world to believe this untenable and fantastic proposition. All these gimmicks are being resorted to side track the basic issue of determining fair share of Telangana in the allocation river waters.

The ongoing debate about irrigation facilities, especially on utilization of river waters in Andhra Pradesh has, therefore, many dimensions – economic, political, moral, legal and also emotional. It has the potential to determine the future of the State itself.

(Detailed notes regarding the construction of irrigation projects in Telangana region and a few important projects of Andhra region, which have bearing on Telangana right from the inception of the State of Andhra Pradesh are appended.)

THE PROPOSAL OF ERSTWHILE HYDERABAD GOVERNMENT

The Hyderabad Government planned to provide irrigation for around 70 lakh acres to Telangana Region through grandiose projects such as Tungabhadra project (left bank canal), Upper Krishna project (Right Bank canal), Bheema Project and Nandikonda Project (Nagarjunasagar) all in Krishna Basin and Godavari Valley project, Inchampally Project and Devanur Project in Godavari Basin. All these projects have either been shelved or curtained. The Bachawat Tribunal on Krishna Waters, in its report categorically mentioned that “Had there been no division of the State (Hyderabad), there were better chances for the residents of this

area to get irrigation facilities”. (Annexure-I)

A. Bachawat Tribunal’s observations with reference to specific projects:

1. Extension of the Tungabhadra Left Bank Canal to Andhra Pradesh:

In 1947, the Hyderabad Government proposed the extension of the left bank low level canal in order to irrigate 1, 20,000 acres in Gadwal and Alampur taluqs in Telangana with an annual utilization of 19.2 TMCs. Unfortunately, this request made by Government of Andhra Pradesh to include the project for allocation was not conceded by the Tribunal on the ground that the Project was not accepted by the Govt. of India for inclusion in the second five year plan before 1st Nov. 1956. The Government of Andhra Pradesh should have put forth their arguments more forcefully before the Tribunal and seen to it that the claim was made acceptable. There is a mention in the report of the Tribunal itself that “the council of Andhra Pradesh claimed relief under section 108 (2) of the state Reorganization act, 1956 only and did not argue that Andhra Pradesh was entitled to the relief under section 107 & 108 (1) of the act or

under any other provision of law”. (Annexure-II)

2. Extension of a Project on the Bheema in Mysore to Andhra Pradesh:

The Hyderabad Government contemplated construction of the Bheema Reservoir Project in Gulbarga district for irrigating 4 lakh acres in Gulbarga and Mahabubnagar districts. After 1956, the Karnataka Government proposed two schemes namely Bheema Lift Irrigation Scheme and Bheema Irrigation Project at different locations in lieu of the earlier proposal made by the Hyderabad Government. Government of Andhra Pradesh made a request to the Tribunal that they may be permitted to construct the Bheema Project at the same old place namely Tangadgi in Mysore with proviso to make extension of canal to Mahabuubnagar district in Andhra Pradesh to irrigate 3,80,000 acres with an annual utilization of 100.7 TMC of water. Again, in this case also the Tribunal did not accede to the request of the proposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the Bheema Project was neither taken in hand by the Government nor included in the second five year plan before the 1st Nov. 1956.

3. EXTENSION OF UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT:

The Hyderabad Government proposed construction of Upper Krishna Project for irrigating Gadwal and Alampur taluqs of Telangana and other areas in Hyderabad State. The Project would have benefited to the extent of 1, 50,000 acres with an annual utilization of 54.4 TMC of water. In this case too, the Tribunal did not accept the proposal of the State Government on the plea that the Project was neither taken in hand, nor included in the second five year plan before the 1st Nov.1956.

Thus, 174.30 TMC of Krishna Waters through the three Projects cited above were deprived to the Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh, because of casual approach adopted and the non serious arguments put forward by the council of the Andhra Pradesh before the Hon’ble Bachawat Tribunal. Had these 174 TMC of precious waters been made available to the region in gravity manner, the Mahabubnagar district would have flourished as one of the richest districts of the State, producing surplus food to cater to needs of the other parts of the country.

Today, because of denial of rightful share of their waters the district has turned as a perennial famine and drought stricken area. Around 14 lakh people migrate to other parts of the country in search of employment annually.

4. JURALA PROJECT:

The Bachawat Tribunal has made the following observations in respect of Jurala Project.

“The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, no doubt, has been allotted enough water for historical reasons, but still Telangana part of the state Andhra Pradesh stands in need of irrigation. The area which we are considering for irrigation formed part of Hyderabad state and had there been no division of that state there were better chances for the residents of this area to get irrigation facilities in Mahabubnagar district. We are of the opinion that this area should not be deprived of the benefit of the irrigation on account of the reorganization of states. If properly managed, Jurala Project stage-I can operate by utilizing about 18 TMC. We, therefore, think it proper that 17.84 TMC of water at 75% dependability should be allocated for stage-I of the Project.

If it turns out that the Jurala irrigation Project is not a practical proposition, it is expected that 17.84 TMC would be utilized by the State Andhra Pradesh elsewhere in Telangana Region. We cannot conceive that the State of Andhra Pradesh having put forward the claim for allocation of water for Telangana region and having received an allocation for use in that region would use it

elsewhere outside that region” (Annexure-III)

Thus, it can be seen that the allocation of 17.84 TMC to the Jurala Project has been purely a benevolent act on the part of the Hon’ble Tribunal as a part compensation in lieu of the huge loss sustained by the Telangana to the extent of 174 TMC due to the inefficient and callous attitude of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in not protecting the legitimate rights of the Telangana region accrued to them under the State Reorganization Act.

5. RAJOLIBAND DIVERSION SCHEME. (RDS):

An agreement was entered in to between the Governments of the Madras and Hyderabad in June, 1944 in regard to scheme for the partial utilization of the Tungabhadra waters. As per this, the Rajolibanda Canal proposed by Hyderabad will be treated on an equal status with that of an existing Kurnool-Cuddapha canal (KC Canal). Further, it stated in the agreement that at the point of diversion of the Rajolibanda Canal the natural flow will be divided half and half between Madras and Hyderabad. (Annexure-IV)

Thus, it is evident that the allocation to the KC Canal and RDS Canal should have been equal. However, for the reasons best known to the Government of Andhra Pradesh they have not strongly put forward the claim that both these Projects should be treated on equal footing, with the result the Tribunal allocated 39.9 TMC to KC Canal and 17.1 TMC to RDS Canal. Out of the 17.1 TMC the Karnataka’s share is 1.2 TMC and the rest (15.9 TMC) is the entitlement of the AP. (Mahabubnagar District of Telangana). (Annexure-V)

In reality, the Mahabubnagar district never realized more than 6-7 TMC against their share of 15.9 TMC. A perusal of the record of the utilizations of the Project reveals the facts (Annexure-VI). The Government on several occasions admitted openly that the main reason for shortfall in supply to RDS Ayacut is that there are a few construction sluices (Openings) that remained unplugged in the RDS anicut built across the Tungabhadra River. (Annexure-VIA) The waters that were due to the RDS Canal pass through these unplugged holes of anicut downstream to the Sunkesula anicut to serve the farmers of the KC Canal. The KC Canal farmers are reaping the benefits of these additional waters that legitimately belong to the RDS farmers and made available to them due to the inefficiency and inability of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in not plugging the illegal construction sluices. Some efforts, which were made in the past to plug these holes in the anicut were made futile by the brutal force used by the KC Canal farmers. The net result is that while the KC Canal farmers are enjoying the waters of Tungabhadra much more than their legal share, the poor farmers of the Mahabubnagar district stand to loose. This is a classic example to show the

partial attitude of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the discriminatory approach adopted by them towards the Telangana region. A visit to RDS anicut and Sunkesula Barrage by the Committee would reveal the facts.

APPORTIONMENT OF KRISHNA WATERS:

The Hon’ble Bachawat Tribunal has apportioned the Krishna Waters among the three States namely Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The apportionment was based on the principle of ‘priority of appropriation’ and as well as the reasonable requirement of the Projects of each State. Based on these principles the distribution was 800 TMCto Andhra Pradesh, 700 TMC to Karnataka and 560 TMC to Maharashtra.

The region wise share in the allocated quantity with reference to the project wise allocation and catchments area of Krishna basin lying in the three regions of Andhra Pradesh are as under:

Note:

33 TMC of

evaporation losses of Srisailam Hydro-Electric project allocated equally i.e., 11 TMC for each region.

Source: Report of the Expert Committee on utilization of River Waters in Andhra Pradesh Krishna River Basin – Vol.1 relevant extract (Annexure-VII)

Sl.No: Rayalaseema Coastal AndhraTelangana: Total:

1Catchments area of Krishna basin

lying in the region(SQ. Miles/Percentage)

541418.39%

386013.11%

20.16768.50%

29.441100%

2Allocation as per Krishna Water

Disputes Tribunal Award (TMC./Percentage)

133.7016.71%

388.4448.56%

277.8634.73%

800100%

3Utilization of water outside the

Krishna basin(TMC./Percentage)

53.6040.1%

362.6093.33%

NilNil

416.2052.02%

From the above, it is seen that the Tribunal has allocated 34.73% of Krishna waters against its due share of 68.5%, if the allocation is based on catchment area. As per principles laid down by the International Institute of Law (Helsinki Rules) the water allocations amongst basin states are based on the following parameters with suitable weightage to each one of them: (Relevant extract at Annexure-VIIA)

1. Catchment area & Rainfall2. Population3. Cultivable area4. Backwardness5. Availability of other sources of water6. Prior users

Had Telangana been a separate State, the claim of Telangana would have been not less than 548 TMC. What has been allocated by the Tribunal (277.86 TMC) is just half of the rightful share that it is entitled to. It is painfully noted that Telangana region is deprived of even this meager quantity that has been allocated to it through discriminatory, unlawful and unethical acts of the State Government as revealed in the subsequent paras.

DISCRIMINATORY ACTS OF STATE

1. JURALA PROJECT:

In order to utilize 17.84 TMC allocated to the project by the Tribunal, the dam has been constructed to store 11.94 TMC. Unfortunately, the reservoir has never been filled up; up to FRL. The only reason for not filling up the reservoir up to FRL (Full Reservoir Level) is the nonpayment of sum amounting to Rs. 44 crores to the State of Karnataka to evacuate people from submerged area. The callous attitude of the Government in not paying the dues to Karnataka has made a

mockery of the reservoir remaining getting practically half empty. (only, during the recent times the Jurala Reservoir is reported to have been filled up) Though, the Project has commenced way back in 1980, still it remains incomplete. The water could not be utilized fully an account of non-completion of the distributary system. The pathetic part is that the Jurala waters are being utilized in the ayacut of RDS so as to benefit 30, 000 acres of tail end ayacut, which has been denied the supply of Tungabhadra waters, for the reasons that have already been explained in earlier paras, vide G.O. No.77, dated 15-04-1999 (copy enclosed at

Annexure-VIII) Further the Jurala waters are also transferred to Kurnool area of Rayalaseema occasionally, which is nothing but violation of the stipulation of the Tribunal’s directions.

2. RDS:

As if the sorrows of RDS perpetuated by KC Canal farmers are not sufficient a mini hydel project namely Swarna is under execution just upstream of the RDS anicut. The waters that will be used for generating power at the Swarna Mini Hydel Project will deprive the already reduced flows of the RDS Canal since; the outflows of the hydel plant, instead of joining RDS Canal would directly join the main river down stream of the RDS anicut. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have kept a cool attitude towards the whole affair when the plant was commenced for construction and when the farmers of Mahabubnagar district agitated, the Government preferred to be silent. The matter was taken up by one Mr. Atmalinga Reddy before the Supreme Court in the year 2008. The Supreme Court has found fault with the State Government and observed that “The State of Andhra Pradesh, in fairness, ought to have placed all facts subsequent to filing of the counter

affidavit, when the matter was heard by this Court. The State, however, failed to do so.” Now the matter is before the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal. (Annexure-IX).

3. NAGARJUNA SAGAR:

The Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Nandikonda Project) earlier was taken up for execution on the basis of joint report 1954 of the erstwhile Andhra and Hyderabad States. As per this report, a total of 20.99 lakh acres was to be irrigated. The Left Bank Canal which serves Telangana and Andhra was to cater to 7.95 lakh acres of Telangana and 2.05 lakh acres of Andhra area. The water that was be utilized in Telangana was to be 161 TMC and 25 TMC for Andhra region. However, the Planning Commission, which sanctioned the Project in the year 1956, had curtailed the ayacut of Telangana to 6.6 lakh acres for which utilization was fixed as 111 TMC. Similarly, the ayacut for the Andhra was fixed as 1.3 lakh areas and the utilization sanctioned was 21 TMC. The Government Andhra Pradesh has made several manipulations during course of execution of the Project and finally brought down the ayacut of Telangana to 5.32 lakh acres through gravity for which 90.2 TMC would be utilized and 0.70 lakh acres through lifts by utilizing 9.8 TMC. Thus, a total of 100 TMC is shown to be allocated to Telangana by ruthlessly curtailing the legitimate share of Telangana by 11 TMC (and same was added to the Andhra’s share and with the result the utilization for Andhra has been increased to 32.25 TMC and ayacut also was increased to 3.8 lakh acres). Thus, a clear gap of 58,000 acres ayacut in the share of Telangana has resulted. In order to make up the gap ayacut the State Government directed that at a later date this could be brought under irrigation, however, no extra water was allocated for this and this was to be managed by internal saving. The intention of the Government was to bring more areas in Nuziveedu and Tiruvur of Krishna district of Andhra under the cultivation at the cost of Telangana. (Relevant extract at Annexure-X).

The above shows how the State Government is inclined to promote the interests of the Andhra area at cost of causing sufferings and loss to the poor farmers of Telangana. When the matter was raised by Hon’ble Members of the Committee on Estimates of the Fifth Legislative Assembly the reply of the Government was totally unconvincing as could be seen from the relevant extracts of Annexure-XI.

Another mischief played by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was to drop the left bank canal in to the Palair Reservoir and taking the off-take point at a much lower level than the FRL of the Palair Reservoir. The Hon’ble Members of Committee on Estimates have observed that “by letting the main canal into Palair River the level seems to be reduced by five feet and also the off-take is again reduced by eight feet which also results in considerable reduction in the ayacut beyond” The reply of the Government is so astonishing that the Government instead of rectifying its wrong deeds have tried to get shield by making a statement that “any change at this juncture would create complications lower down where major works are in progress and they would get effected”. (Relevant extracts at Annexure-XII) It is also surprising that the Hon’ble Committee on Estimates have accepted the Government’s reply. Instead of pulling the Government to rectify the damage and fixing the responsibility for such an intentional, negligent and callous act of the concerned, chose to remain silent.

The Andhra Engineers working on Left Bank Canal investigation brought out a strange argument that sufficient ayacut in Telangana was not available and the Government have accepted their plea. Hence, Andhra ayacut has been increased.

During Telangana Agitation in the year 1969, the Government reversed its stand and ordered that the original ayacut in Andhra and Telangana be restored. As the agitation calmed down, the Government again took a ‘U’ turn and reduced the Telangana ayacut. Even if there is no ayacut available under gravity irrigation, same could have been transferred to lift irrigation and the total ayacut could be kept as per the original plan. Where was the need to reduce the allocation of Telangana and transfer the same to Andhra? This is a clear case of discrimination shown against Telangana.

(Relevant Government Orders enclosed vide Annexure-XIII)

When the Hon’ble Members of the Estimate Committee desired that one lakh acres should be brought under Lift Irrigation to Telangana as per the original plan, the Government went on explaining their difficulty in implementing the suggestion and stated that they may be permitted to bring only 50,000 acres under Lift. (Relevant abstracts enclosed vide Annexure-XIV)

Discrimination against the Telangana Farmers:

From the beginning, the Right Bank Canal of Nagarjunasagar serving Andhra area is being shown preference over the Left Bank Canal, which serves part of Andhra area besides Telangana. Whether it is a matter of allotment of funds or designing the size of Canals, fixing the levels of the canals or releasing the water from the reservoir etc., the partiality is clearly visible. The expenditure figures reflecting in the form of potential that has been reported in the annual budget of Government of Andhra Pradesh for some of the years prove the point (Extract

enclosed vide Annexure - XXV). The variations in sizes of the Left and Right Bank Canals, though, the designed discharges are equal, would also vindicate the same. The interesting point to note is, in case of Right Bank Canal the discharge is reduced from 21,000 cusecs to 11,000 cusecs at the time of execution, The bed width of the Canal has been increased to 241 ft from the designed bed width of 155 ft, where as in case of Left Bank Canal while the discharge is same i.e. 11,000 cusecs both at design and execution stages, but the bed width as executed is reduced to 95 ft from 134 ft, the designed bed width. (Figures enclosed

vide Annexure -XXVI). The field visit to the Nagarjunasagar Dam by the Hon’ble members of the Commission would show that the reported and actual levels of the outlet sluices of both the Canals are at variance.

It is a matter of pain and anguish to bring the fact to the kind notice of the Commission that though the lift schemes are existing and operating on Left as well as the Right Bank Canals, yet, the farmers of Left Bank Canal depending on lifts are required to pay the electricity charges, whereas, the farmers enjoying the

lift arrangements on Right Bank Canal are not to pay any thing, since, the Government bears the charges (vide Annexure - XXVIA). The different treatment meted out to the Telangana farmer’s vis-à-vis Andhra farmers shows how the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not at all impartial.

Construction of Nagarjuna Sagar Tail Pond:

The tail pond reservoir at the toe of the Nagarjunasagar Dam was to be constructed long time back, since it carried the necessary clearances from the Central Government in the year 1972. The tail pond is to capture flows used for generation of electricity flowing through the penstocks and pump the same back to the reservoir through reversible turbines. The Government intentionally did not construct the tail pond. Instead, it went on producing the power and wasting the flows downstream to the river. Many a times, these flows could not be utilized by the Krishna Delta farmers. In the name of generation of power, the authorities supplied water to the Krishna Delta farmers in quantities more than their requirement, detrimental to the interests of farmers of Left and Right Bank Canal. It is now only, the tail pond has been taken up for construction, however, with a different objective. The intention is to facilitate the diversion of Godavari waters to Krishna basin using the tail pond reservoir. The hidden agenda of the Government is obvious. It wants to replace the releases from Nagarjunasagar to the farmers of Left Bank Canal fully and Right Bank Canal partially by Godavari waters, so that the waters saved could be stored in Srisailam reservoir to be utilized by the Rayalaseema and other projects in Prakasham district. The hurry in which the tail pond is taken up now is a clear indication of the strategy/mal-intention of the Government to deprive Telangana of its legitimate share of Godavari as well as Krishna waters.

Water supply to twin cities of Hyderabad & Secunderabad:

The twin cities lie in Krishna basin. The Bachawat Tribunal has made an allocation of 3.9 TMC towards this item. Since the demand of twin cities increased leaps and bounds, additional supplies from Manjeera, a tributary to Godavari were also made available. To cope up with the further demand, the Government have taken up Krishna water supply scheme to augment water supplies to the Twin Cities in three phases, 5.5 TMC in each phase. While the first phase is over, the second phase is nearing completion. The Government has suddenly reversed its stand and decided to stop the implementation of the third phase of the sanctioned programme. Based on a typically strange argument that the needs of Capital City would be enormous in the coming years and the Krishna would not be able to meet the requirements, the Government has decided to bring the water from far location on River Godavari at huge cost of Rs. 3375 crores covering a distance of 240 Km and involving a huge lift, when implementing Krishna Phase-III scheme would have cost only Rs. 850 crores and the distance involved is just 110 Km. All this to see that the Krishna waters are stored in the Srisailam reservoir to be utilized for irrigation out side the Krishna basin. After meeting the requirements of Rayalaseema and Prakasam district, then only the balance could be utilized in Telangana and other downstream users. This is the sole intention of the Government.

Inter-se priority of utilization of Krishna water:

As per the Bachawat Tribunal’s directions all the projects that have been included in the category –I and Category-II mentioned in their report would get same priority in utilization of Krishna waters (Relevant abstracts enclosed vide

Annexure -XV). However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has always preferred to release waters to the Krishna Delta on priority over the Nagarjunasagar ayacutdars. The matter was brought to the notice of the Government several times and this was one of the issues of consideration that were raised by Sri K. Chandrasekhar Rao, the then Union Minister for Labour and Employment before the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in a meeting held in the presence of Sri Digvijay Sing the then AICC General Secretary and Incharge of Andhra

Pradesh. The Government did not change their attitude even after explaining them the direction of Tribunal. Now, the same procedure is adhered to. The Government have been maintaining that Krishna Delta farmers are prior users and therefore, they should be given preference to Sagar beneficiaries. If the same argument is extended, the ayacutdars of Alamatti would have to wait till Nagarjunasagar Ayacutdars get their waters fully. This is a clear violation of the verdict of the Bachawat Tribunal and such acts are detrimental to the interests of Telangana region.

SRISAILAM PROJECT:

This Project constructed upstream of Nagarjunasagar is to act as a balancing reservoir for Nagarjunasagar, besides, producing Hydel power. The Project is prohibited to serve irrigation as specified in the Tribunal report at several places. (Relevant abstracts enclosed vide Annexure-XVI). However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh through sheer manipulations converted the reservoir in to an irrigation reservoir gradually. The reason as to why the Tribunal permitted utilization of 33 TMC towards evaporation loss in this reservoir was because it was basically a reservoir to serve irrigation purposes downstream. This facility was denied to Government of Maharashtra in respect of Koyna reservoir, since the waters of Koyna after producing the power would join the Arabian Sea and not utilized for irrigation at all as in case of Srisailam. (Relevant abstracts enclosed vide Annexure-XVII)

The Government never bothered about the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal and went on violating all the provisions and stipulations of the Tribunal in a phased manner to suit their convenience. The list of Irrigation Projects directly depending flows from Sirsailam Reservoir (are shown at Annexure-XVIII).

Pothireddipadu Head Regulator:

Pothireddipadu Head Regulator constructed in the foreshore of the Srisailam reservoir in the year 1983 envisaged to divert dependable flows of 15 TMC meant for water supply to Chennai through Telugu Ganga Project and 19 TMC for Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) and 29 TMC of surplus flows to be carried through the Telugu Ganga to benefit the farmers of Kurnool and Kadapa. Though, the Central Government has not given its sanction to Telugu Ganga Project, State has continued to spend huge sums on this project, on which a number of balancing reservoirs to store surplus flows are constructed. The details of these are at Annexure –XIX.

Not content with the diversion of these surplus flows the Government have resorted to divert the dependable flows in the garb of surplus flows to the Penna Basin and other areas of Andhra with a crude strategy to benefit Andhra region at the cost of Telangana.

As per the principles of International Law Institute and the National Water Policy and the observations of the Bachawat Tribunal, (extracts at Annexure-XX), the areas lying within the basin would be entitled to the waters of the basin. It is only after meeting the interests of the basin, the surplus flows, if any could be diverted to the areas out side the basin. Even in case of Narmada the Hon’ble Tribunal expressed its inability to allocate waters of Narmada to the Rajasthan State, simply, because, Rajasthan was not a basin State. On the same principle, the regions and the districts lying within the Krishna basin naturally would get preference over the other basins, whether they are dependable flows or surplus flows or flood flows. But, the Government of Andhra Pradesh would not respect any laws or directions of Tribunals or Courts or any Institutions, if they do not suit to their line of thinking.

The Tribunal had recommended that the Minimum Draw Down Level (MDDL) of the Srisailam reservoir be kept at 830 feet in order to take maximum advantage of power production vide extract at Annexure-XXA. The Government have fixed the MDDL as 834 ft in the year 1996 vide G.O.Ms.No. 69 (Relevant portions enclosed

vide Annexure-XXI), based on suggestions of Bachawat Tribunal (Relevant abstracts

enclosed vide Annexure-XXII), However, the Government have mischievously raised the MDDL to 854 feet in the year 2004 to cater to the needs of Rayalaseema region, at the cost of power generation and irrigation interests of Nagarjunasagar and Krishna Delta. The raising of MDDL vide G.O.Ms.No. 107, a copy at Annexure-XXIII, was to facilitate drawl of Srisailam waters under all circumstances though Pothireddipadu Head Regulator whose sill level is 841 feet. This was the first act in the drama of diverting the flows of Krishna River to the outside basin. Therefore, a series of G.O.s followed one after another namely G.O.No.170, G.O. 233, G.O.No.3 and so on.(copies at Annexure-XXIIIA). By means of these G.O.s, the Pothireddipadu Head Regulator was permitted to be widened four times the present capacity. Though, the Government continues to make false statements that only the surplus flows would be diverted, but in reality, their intention is to divert the dependable flows to the detriment of the farmers downstream. The statements made by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, prove the point beyond doubt. (Paper cuttings enclosed at Annexure-XXIV)

The reason explained by the Government for increasing the capacity of the Head Regulator is that because of construction of Alamatti Dam, the period of inflows into the Srisailam Reservoir has reduced considerably. Therefore, there is a need to divert the surplus flows only within a span of 30 days. To serve this purpose, not only the capacity of Pothireddipadu Head Regulator is increased four times, the sizes of other components have been increased sufficiently. Many balancing reservoirs have been added to capture these surpluses. However, this facility is not extended to the Telangana Projects. The Nettempadu, Kalwakurthy and SLBC projects which are to serve the irrigation purposes of the drought affected areas of Telangana are to depend on the surplus flows for a period of 90days and not 30 days as designed in case of Rayalaseema Projects. No balancing reservoirs are planned to capture the surpluses in case of Telangana Projects as done for other Rayalaseema Projects. This sort of adopting double standards only reveals the apathy of the Government towards Telangana.

Banakacherla Cross Regulator:

The waters of Krishna stored in Srisailam diverted through Pothireddipadu Head Regulator would flow in to the Srisailam Right Main Canal and then distributed through Banakacherla Cross Regulator to various Projects. While the Pothireddipadu Cross Regulator was constructed in the year 1983 with a capacity of 11,150 cusecs the Banakacherla cross regulator was sanctioned in 1985 with a capacity of 32,300 cusecs. It is not understood why the discharging capacity of the cross regulator was kept three times of the head regulator capacity. Obviously, the intention was to divert more flows through the Pothireddipadu Head Regulator at a future date. Citing the capacity of Banakacherla cross regulator the Government has wisely increased the capacity of head regulator after 27 years. This episode clearly depicts that the Andhra rulers have preplanned to divert as much flows of Krishna to Penna Basin in a phased manner and accordingly they devised the strategy.

Luxury of having water to the second crop of the Krishna Delta:

Despite several requests made by the Government before the Bachawat Tribunal, the Tribunal did not accept to allocate more than 15.3 TMC of water, which could be utilized to irrigate 37, 498 acres of the second crop of the Krishna Delta, besides meeting the requirement of green manure, water supply, washing of salinity, navigation etc. However, the Government is continuously, as a matter of a right utilizing the flows of Krishna River to raise the second crop in the Krishna Delta to the extent of 4-5 lakh acres. ( Relevant extract of Tribunal’s report at Annexure - XXIVA)

PULICHINTHALA PROJECT:

The Pulichinthala Project, now under execution is essentially envisaged to capture intermittent flows below the Nagarjunasagar Dam. The Tribunal did not agree to allocate any waters to Pulichinthala Project. The Project is meant to stabilize the Krishna Delta ayacut, besides providing irrigation to the second crop and third crop subject to availability of water. When commenced it did not carry any permissions from any authority except that of Central Water Commission. The essential clearances from Environmental Ministry of Union Government were lacking, yet the State proceeded ahead facing lot of hindrances from the Courts and criticism from voluntary agencies. One of the main objections raised against the Pulichinthala was that Government did not consider viable alternatives. This has also figured in the meeting held between Mr. K. Chandrasekhar Rao, the then Union Minister for Labour Employment and the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in presence of Sri Digvijay Singh, AICC General Secretary and Incharge Andhra Pradesh State. The State Government promised to consider the suggestion of looking into the alternatives, but miserably failed to do so. The Project would submerge 30, 000 acres of land besides submerging thousands of tones of valuable limestone deposits, spread over 472 acres of land. The alternatives suggested by Sri Hanumantha Rao, Retired E-in-C would have served the objective of the Project without creating any submergence. But, the Government is adamant and not prepared to consider any suggestion. In fact the Environmental Act warrants study of alternatives. This shows that the Government does not respect any Environmental law, or any other law of land. It has a hidden agenda of promoting the interests of Andhra area at the cost of submerging valuable lands of Telangana, displacing number of hapless poor farmers of Telangana and disrupting the economy of the locals who loose the opportunity of working in the cement factories that would get displaced.

UTILIZATION COMMITTED ACCORDING TO ALL PARTY RESOLUTION OF 1981

In pursuance of the resolution passed in the all party meeting held in 1981, Telugu Ganga Canal with extension to Sagileru Valley to irrigate 2.75 lakh acres with utilization of 29 TMC of surplus flows was sanctioned to the Rayalaseema region. On the same lines, Srisailam Left Bank Canal to irrigate 3 lakh acres in Nalgonda district with utilization of 30 TMC was granted to Telangana region. Though, both were to be treated on par, in reality, the Telugu Ganga Canal was always treated superior and preferred to the SLBC. The fact could be verified from the flow of funds to each Project in each year and the time taken for completion of that Project.

The comparison of budget outlays in crores for a few years for these two Projects is given as under:

Year Telugu Ganga SLBC

1984-85 60 crores 3.5 crores

1985-86 75 crores 15 crores



2006-07 465 crores 299.75 crores

2007-08 446.07 crores 380.76 crores

2008-09 227.23 crores 471.12 crores

2009-10 190.81 crores 419.50 crores

(Relevant extracts at Annexure-XXVIB)

The report an annual budget for the year 1996-97 admits that “work on SLBC, Dormant for the last five years, has been expedited” (extract enclosed vide Annexure-XXVII)

It is seen that both Projects were started in the year 1983. As per the financial progress is concerned, the Telugu Ganga Canal is 75 percent complete and SLBC has just crossed half mark. The latest estimated cost of Telugu Ganga Project is 4,432 Crores, whereas, the SLBC’s latest cost is 4,073 Crores. The cumulative expenditure up to January, 2006 incase of Telugu Ganga is 1880.40 crores and the same is 687.5 crores for SLBC. This means that the expenditure for Telugu Ganga was three times the expenditure for SLBC. It is only during last four years, when Telangana Agitation spearheaded, more funds have been pumped into the SLBC Project. Also since tunnel component has been added to the Project, the need for more funds was felt. The cumulative expenditure up to January, 2010 in case of Telugu Ganga is 3,151.66 crores against 2,196.5 Crores in case of SLBC (3:2). Though, both Projects are accorded same priority in terms of the all party resolution of 1981 and the total cost is almost same, there is huge variance in terms of the total expenditure. This is a clear example to show the Government’s apathy towards Telangana Projects.

Source:

The annual budgets of Government of Andhra Pradesh for various years.

APPORTIONMENT OF FLOWS OF GODAVARI:

As per the Bachawat Tribunal for Godavari Waters about 1480 TMC could be utilized as dependable flow by Andhra Pradesh. The catchment area of

Telangana is 79% against 21% from Andhra. As per the guidelines of International Law Institute Telangana would have been entitled to 1169 TMC had Telangana were a separate State.

Except Sriramsagar Project (Pochampad) and Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage (Dhawaleshwaram Barrage) there are no other major structures on Godavari in Andhra Pradesh. Now, there is a proposal to construct Polavaram in Andhra area, Yellampally, Devadula, Kanthalapally, Pranahitha-Chevella and Dummugudem in Telangana. While, Polavaram is a gravity scheme all projects contemplated in Telangana are lift schemes requiring huge power.

Under Sir Arthur Cotton Barrage 10 lakh acres are being irrigated in each season (Kharif and Rabi). To provide water for second crop under the Barrage, there were several occasions, when the water was released from SRSP and Kinnerasani Project, ignoring the interests of Telangana.

THE PROJECTS IN GODAVARI BASIN:

The Hyderabad Government proposed Godavari Multipurpose project and Inchampally project on main Godavari and Devanur project on river Manjeera, tributary to Godavari.

GODAVARI PROJECT:

The Hyderabad Government framed a proposal for taking up Multipurpose Godavari Valley project in the year 1954. The Project was proposed to utilize 330 TMC of Godavari waters to irrigate 20.5 lakh acres of main crops besides 4.5 lakh acres of catch crops (green manure and fodder) and 3 lakh acres of forest

fuel and pasture, at a cost of Rs. 85 crores. The Project was to generate 144 mw of power, for which installed capacity of 175 mw was proposed. The Project was to be constructed in four stages. The Hyderabad Government has claimed it as one of the best irrigation schemes in the Country. The Project was to serve areas in seven districts of the Hyderabad State, namely Nanded (now in Maharashtra State), Adilabad, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda. All these districts except Adilabad are densely populated and the cultivators are used to irrigation under numerous tanks scattered in the area. Further, the Project would serve a very large area in the Krishna Basin in Nalgonda and Khammam districts, which has no other source of irrigation. Further, this area frequently suffers from scarcity and due to the failure of rains at the crop periods. However, the Project did not materialize.

As could be seen from the Fifteenth Report of the Sub Committee on Planning of the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee as adopted on 8th June, 1959, the Pochampad Project was proposed in place of the erstwhile Godavari Valley Project with modified scope. As per the modified proposal, the cost of the Project was 117.85 crores and it would serve an ayacut of 18.56 lakh acres in five districts, namely Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda.

Despite strong recommendations from the Sub Committee on Planning of the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, to get the Project included in the second five year plan, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not succeed due to the strong objections from the Government of Maharashtra. The Project which commenced as a Medium Project now ultimately got sanction from the Planning Commission as a Major Project with much reduced scope as compared to the original proposal envisaged by the Hyderabad Government.

As per the Project now under execution (SRSP Stage-I, SRSP Stage-II and Flood Flow Canal), it is to serve an area of 16.68 lakh acres.

Pochampad, the only prestigious Major Project, which is considered as the lifeline of the Telangana, is suffering badly due to inefficient and discriminatory attitude of the Government. The Project started in the year 1963 is still progressing with snail’s space. The report of annual budget of Government of Andhra Pradesh for the year 1959-60 says “ a medium project on Godavari at Pochampad in Adilabad district has been investigated and report being submitted to the Government of India with a view to make a beginning, if possible, during the period of second

planning it self ”. The report on annual budget for the year 1966-67 says “due to pressure of demands for several projects and schemes, it has not been possible to provide

more than Rs. 1.2 crores for the Pochampad Project next year”. However, Rs. 8.2 crores were allocated to Nagarjunasagar Project, 1.98 crores was allotted Tungabhadra High level canal, 0.43 crores for Tandava Reservoir and 0.12 crores for KC Canal. It can be realized that except Nagarjunasagar, which is a Project which would benefit Telangana region (approximately ¼ to Telangana and ¾ to Andhra) all other Projects belong to Andhra area and Government did not find any problem in allocating funds to them. ( Relevant extract at Annexure-XXVIIA). Further, the budget allocations to the Project were always given lesser priority as compared to Nagarjunasagar Project, as can be noticed from the extracts at Annexure-XXVIIB. Evidently, the Government did not pay adequate attention toward this Project, being the Telangana Project.

As far as the progress of construction of Pochampad project now named as Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) is concerned, the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) for the year ended 31st March, 1999 is worth perusal and they are reproduced as follows: “due to non completion of Kakatiya Canal between Km 235 and Km 284, as also of some distributaries under the all Canals, only 2.55 lakh (65 per cent) ha irrigation potential had been created by 1990, though, the Canal system started functioning from 1970. The potential actually utilized during the last five years was, however, still lower (0.55 to 0.87 lakh ha), a meager 34 per cent of the potential created (2.55 lakh ha), and only 22 per cent of that envisaged (3.92 lakh ha). The low utilization of potential was attributed mainly to (i) reduction of varying capacity of Kakatiya Canal from 8,500 cusecs to 5,000 cusecs

due to bed siltation and broken lining (ii) over drawl of water in upper reaches”. The Government claims that it has completed SRSP stage-I successfully in the year 2004 and it has developed potential of 9.68 lakh acres. However, as per the

report of Chief Engineers of dated 12-09-2008, the ayacut irrigated under SRSP project is only 5 lakh acres. (Relevant extract vide at Annexure XXVIII). This shows that the claims made by the Government are not at all true. The fact could be verified by the Hon’ble members of the Commission from the farmers of SRSP Stage-I, during their field inspection.

The Kakatiya Canal, the principle carrier of SRSP waters was originally planned to have a length of 234 Km. However, the same was extended up to 284 Km, under SRSP Stage-I. The works on the Canal up to Km. 234 were carried out with assistance under Second World Bank Project. Thereafter, the balance works between Km. 235 to Km. 284 were continued with State Funds as well as Central assistance under AIBP. However, while processing the third Project in April, 1997. World Bank Authorities observed that simulation model studies conducted by the department indicated that extension of command beyond Km. 234 was not warranted; as supply of water would be extremely unreliable. Against this background, the works being executed on Kakatiya Canal beyond Km. 234 were of doubtful utility, as commented by the Comptroller and Auditor of India, in his report. The relevant extracts of the CAG report is at Annexure-

XXVIIIA.

When the water availability is so doubtful, even to bring the Canal up to Km. 284, the purpose behind taking further the Kakatiya Canal from Km. 284 to Km. 346 is nothing but fooling the Telangana people, in the absence of assured supplies.

SRSP STAGE – II

This component at a cost of Rs. 1,098 crores is supposed to create irrigation potential of 4, 40,000 acres. Though, Rs. 763.67 crores are reported to have been spent on the Project, not even a single acre has been added to the cultivated area. Pitiably, the Government claims that they created new potential

of 1, 64,687 acres till end of January, 2010, which is utterly false and this can be verified in the field. The surprising part of this Project is that Government still has not decided from which source this Project will get water. The main SRSP Reservoir is unable to serve even the first stage ayacut fully, as already pointed out by the CAG (please refer the earlier para). Therefore, the SRSP stage-II has to depend on waters either from Yellampally Project or Devadula Project, which are under construction or Pranahitha-Chevella Scheme, which is yet to be grounded. However, the Government has apparently come up with a proposal to meet the needs of SRSP-II by constructing Kanthalapally Barrage downstream of Devadula. It is to be seen, ultimately from which source the waters to the SRSP-II would actually materialize.

The problems faced by SRSP Project:

Numerous problems are faced by SRSP. On one hand, the inflows in to the reservoir have reduced considerably. The envisaged inflows of 196 TMC into SRSP Dam are not realized and only around 150 TMC are experienced. The capacity of the reservoir got reduced due to heavy silitation in the reservoir ( 112 TMC got reduced to 80 TMC). The main canal namely the Kakatiya, which was supposed to carry a discharge of 9,700 cusecs is unable to carry the designed discharge due to faulty designs and lapses in the construction. The problem is aggravated due to construction of Babli Project and eleven more schemes upstream of SRSP by Government of Maharashtra. Now, there are apprehensions in minds of the farmers of SRSP that the reservoir will not get sufficient flows, once all the Projects now under execution by Government of Maharashtra are completed, with the result, the fields of SRSP will turn into desert and the farmers will be forced to commit suicides.

The Babli and other Projects under construction by Government of Maharashtra:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh was virtually caught sleeping, when Babli and other eleven Projects were taken up by Government of Maharashtra upstream of SRSP. It was only when the Media and some of the opposition parties have brought the issue in to light, then the Government woke up and started taking some actions that too making correspondence with Government of Maharashtra. From the chronology of the events that took place since the issue caught up the Government’s attention, it is very clear that the Government did not take the matter seriously. The inordinate delay in realizing the importance of the issue now poses a serious threat to the farmers of SRSP. It was only after Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and other political parties have taken up the matter to the Supreme Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also took some steps in that direction. All the Projects which are under construction by the Government of Maharashtra are almost complete. In particular, the Babli Project is complete except for erection of gates. The matter is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The State Government instead of taking advice from the engineering and legal experts and cooperation from all political parties is trying to isolate them. In fact, the State Government requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions filed by the opposition parties. The seriousness with which State Government is fighting the case of Polavaram in the Supreme Court is not at all seen in case of Babli project. The number of people’s representatives and Officials present at the time of hearings of both the cases would prove the point beyond doubt. The Government is acting in step motherly manner so far as protecting the interest of SRSP is concerned. On the other hand, the State Government is very much concerned about the hindrances that are coming in the way of Polavaram Project. This itself shows that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is favourably disposed towards Andhra area in preference to the Telangana.

Projects undertaken under Jalayagnam Programme:

Around 82 Projects Major and Medium are taken up by the Government under Jalayagnam programme at a huge cost of 1, 76,000 crores. In Godavari Basin, a number of major Projects namely SRSP stage-II, Flood flow Canal, J. Chokka Rao Devadula Lift Irrigation Scheme, Sripadasagar (Yellampally), Pranahitha-Chevella and Dummugudem Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond have been undertaken. Polavaram Project is the major project taken up in the Andhra area, besides a few lift schemes namely Thadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme, Pushkaram Lift Irrigation Scheme. A new Project namely Babu Jagjeevan Ram Uttarandhra Sujala Sravanthi is also included in the list of Projects for which budget provisions have been made in the year 2009-10.

PRANAHITHA-CHEVELLA:

The Project is estimated to cost Rs. 38, 500 crores. The ultimate irrigation potential is 16.4 lakh acres. While the budget provision for the year 2009-10 was just 600 crores, the same for year 2010-11 is mere 700 crores. These figures indicate as to how serious the Government is in executing the Project. Government says that it will make efforts to include this project in the prestigious ‘National Projects Category’. It is not known whether the State Government’s request will be accepted by the Union Government. It is not known how many years the Project needs for completion. If Central Government does not provide adequate assistance, how the State Government proposes to complete the Project is not understood. In the Policy Statement, on the Demand for Grant on Major and Medium irrigation in 2010-11, The Government of Andhra Pradesh has mentioned that “The work load of Dr. Ambedkar Pranahitha-Chevella Sujala Sravathi divided in to 28 packages and agreements for all the packages concluded. Investigation work is

in progress in all the packages”. It means that, even without undertaking ground survey and preparing detailed project report and submitting to Government of India for approval, the Government has already awarded the work through 28 packages to the contractors and the contractors in turn have collected mobilization advances. Even the agreement with the Government of Maharashtra has not been concluded to obtain their concurrence, since Pranahitha is an inter-state river and head works lie in territory of Maharashtra.

The Project needs huge power to the extent of 3375 MW. The Government has not planned yet from where the required power will be provided. Further, who will bear the cost of energy, once the Project comes in to operation is not worked out. The situation being so clumsy, the Government makes false promises to the people of Telangana, that they are determined to provide huge benefits to the farmers of Telangana through this Project and making a big campaign of the Project. (Copy of advertisement at Annexure-XXVIIIB). As per the campaign, the Project is slated for completion by May, 2012, a deceitful statement.

In fact, the Andhra Engineers are dead against the sanction of this Project, because they apprehend that the flows of Pranahitha will upset the functioning of Polavaram Project, once Pranahitha-Chevella comes into operation. This is evident from the following happenings. The then Chief Minister while giving clearance to the Pranahitha-Chevella Project verbally has instructed his officials to expedite the administrative approval to the Project. The Chief Minister was enthusiastic over the proposal of lifting 160 TMC of Pranahitha waters and carrying them even up to Chevella, a drought prone area of Ranga Reddy district. But the officials put every spoke in clearing the project. They tried to scuttle the size of the Project, by giving a Government order (copy enclosed vide

Annexure-XXVIIIC) to the effect proposing 5.5 lakh acres of ayacut only, in place of 12 lakh acres as originally envisaged. Further, they tried to complicate the issue by introducing the condition that the proposed transfer of water from Pranahitha is subject to satisfying the Government that this transfer is within the water allocation as per Inter-State Godavari Water Tribunal Award. It was only after the intervention of Chief Minister, who reportedly expressed displeasure over the mess created by his officials (Vide Annexure-XXVIIID), the controversial G.O. was scraped and revised G.O. (copy enclosed vide Annexure-XXIX) permitting to lift 160 TMC as originally envisaged and without the reference to the Inter-State Godavari Water Tribunal Award was issued. However, both the G.O.s referred above are for the preparation of Detailed Project Report, Detailed Investigations etc. only. The Government have now accorded the Administrative Sanction to the scheme for Rs. 17, 875 crores. Though, this Government order was ready for issue quite some time back, this was held in abeyance deliberately and finally issued only along with another G.O. for taking up Dummugudem-NS Tail Pond

on the same date. (Copies of both the G.O.s are at Annexure-XXX). This was done to minimize the opposition from Telanganites, who are opposed to taking up Dummugudem-NS Tail Pond Project, since this would deprive them of their legitimate share of Godavari waters.

DUMMUGUDEM-NS TAIL POND:

This Project is aimed to lift 165 TMC of water from river Godavari from upstream of Dummugudem anicut and carry to Nagarjunasagar Project Tail pond during flood season of Godavari to supplement irrigation under Nagarjunasagar Project. The scheme is a mischievous one, contemplated by the Government to divert the dependable flows of Godavari to Krishna basin in the garb of flood flows, to benefit the farmers of Rayalaseema by process of substitution. In fact, no body either is interested or requested the Government to provide supplementation to the irrigation under the Nagarjunasagar Project by means of Godavari waters. The present flows of NS Dam, if properly and judicially managed would be adequate to cater to the needs of N.S. ayacut. No farmer of N.S. Project is interested to replace the traditional system of getting water from Krishna by Godavari waters that too by huge lifting, about 500 meters requiring 1136 MW power.

The Government faced the ire of opposition parties in the Assembly over this Project. The opposition parties termed this Project as “ill-conceived and unscientific

and was against the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award”. They said the benefit expected from the Project did not justify its huge expenditure of Rs. 20,000 crore. Further, they said the State would have to loose the part of share of Krishna waters, once the Godavari water was diverted to the Krishna (Relevant extract at Annexure-XXXA)

The real intention of the Government is to divert the dependable flows of Krishna to Rayalaseema and other areas through Pothireddipadu Head

Regulator from Srisailam Reservoir and in lieu they intend to transfer Godavari waters. While concealing the real intention of the Government, they are trying to bring the Godavari waters at a huge cost of around Rs. 20,000 crores. Not even a single acre of additional ayacut will be benefited under the scheme. The irony of the whole scheme is that while depriving 165 TMC of dependable flows (in the name of flood flows) that legitimately belong to Telangana just to benefit the Andhra area (mainly Rayalaseema), the Government has included this proposal under the Telangana Projects category.

Diversion of Godavari waters in to Krishna Basin:

As per the Godavari water disputes Tribunal the State of Andhra Pradesh can divert 80 TMC of Godavari waters to Krishna Basin from Polavaram Dam. However, it has to loose 35 TMC of Krishna waters of its share from the date of clearance of the Polavaram Project by the Central Water Commission, irrespective of the actual diversion taking place. Also Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal has stipulated that in the event of the augmentation of waters of the river Krishna by the diversion of the waters of any other river, no State shall be debarred from claiming before the aforesaid reviewing authority or Tribunal that it is entitled to greater share in the waters of the river Krishna an account of such augmentation nor shall any State be debarred from disputing such claim.

In addition to loosing 35 TMC of Krishna waters on account of diversion of 80 TMC of Godavari waters from Polavaram, 72 TMC of Krishna waters (on the same analogy of diversion from Polavaram) would have to be sacrificed, once the diversion of 165 TMC of Godavari waters into Krishna Basin, through the Dummugudem-NS tail pond Canal takes place. Thus, 107 TMC of valuable Krishna waters are to be sacrificed by the State to the Maharashtra and Karnataka due to these two diversion schemes. However, the Government is least bothered about loosing of the Krishna waters to the upper States. They are only interested in diverting as much Krishna waters as possible from Srisailam Reservoir, through Pothireddipadu Head Regulator, at the cost of Telangana and other downstream users.

J. CHOKKA RAO DEVADULA LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME:

Devadula Lift Irrigation Scheme contemplates lifting of 38.18 TMC of Godavari waters to irrigate 6.21 lakh acres in upland drought prone areas of Karimnagar, Warangal and Nalgonda districts from an elevation of 71 meter to 540 meter. The Project cost already sanctioned is 6,016 crores and the same is being revised to Rs.9, 317 crores. The funniest part of this scheme is that there is no structure proposed to be built at the place of lifting. The water proposed to be lifted is directly from the river itself. If the water level goes down below the intake of the pumps, the whole system would collapse. The Government did not heed to the advice of the experts and proceeded ahead as per their wish. Now only, having realized their mistake, has devised another scheme namely Kanthalapally Project to provide constant water levels to facilitate lifting from Devadula, but unfortunately, the Kanthalapally Project, though, accorded administrative approval for Rs. 10,409 crores vide G.O.Ms.No. 27, dated 16-02-2009 is not awarded yet to the contractors and the tendering process has just begun. The Devadula Project, now under execution is suffering very badly due to inferior quality of work and lack of supervision by the department. It has been noticed that on more than one occasion, the pipes laid down blew off, whenever, the water was gushing through the pipes under pressure, at the time of trial runs. The Government obviously did not pay adequate attention to the quality of work.

INDIRASAGAR POLAVARAM PROJECT:

This Project has been taken up by the erstwhile Government on a priority basis and is considered as a prestigious one. Despite, several serious objections from the Environmentalists, Tribal leaders, Farmers, People likely to be submerged by the Project and other Non Governmental Organizations and without obtaining even a single Statutory Clearance from the Concerned Authorities, the Government has gone ahead and without bothering about any law of the land or

consulting any expert in the matter. As per Environmental Act, 1986, before launching any Development Project, alternatives are to be studied. Further environment clearance, forest clearances are mandatory. Unfortunately, the Government did not obtain even the site clearance, which is first and foremost clearance needed to be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, before taking up the Project. The Government already spent around 2, 500 crores. The matter is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Government of Orissa is seriously objecting to the Project on ground that they are not consulted and their concurrence was not obtained as per the agreements specified in the Bachawat Tribunal for Godavari waters. They are not interested to get an inch of their land submerged due to Polavaram. Even the High Court of Orissa gave directions to the effect. The Environmental clearance obtained from the Government of India was found to be based on false information furnished by State Authorities. Without holding mandatory public hearings in Chhattisgarh and Orissa, the State of Andhra Pradesh have furnished wrong reports and obtained Environmental clearance. On an appeal, the clearance was struck down by the Environmental Tribunal.

The agreement reached between the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), Orissa and Andhra Pradesh provides for designing the Dam taking into consideration of the flood magnitude of 36 lakh cusecs. Since the flood has increased to 50 lakh cusecs, the design of the Dam and protection works for submergence need to be done afresh and concurrence from the States is needed. The scope of the Project is also changed. While in the Project report, it is mentioned that 7.2 lakh acres will be brought under irrigation, in reality, canals to irrigate 23 lakh acres are excavated.

As far as Telangana is concerned their objection is that the Project is submerging 206 villages of Khammam district of Telangana, as per Government’s report with magnitude of 36 lakh cusecs. The field survey is yet to be done. This figure is in dispute. With onslaught of 50 lakh cusecs, how many villages would come under submergence is yet to be established. Even with 36

lakh cusec flood, as per old records, Project is submerging around 2 lakh acres of valuable land, mostly belonging to Tribal people. The entire Tribal community will get displaced and they are vehemently opposing the Project. Therefore, in a meeting held at New Delhi in presence of Digvijay Singh on 20-07-2005, the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was requested by the President of Telangana Rashtra Samithi that the unauthorized construction of Polavaram Project for which there is no clearance may be stopped and alternatives be worked out. The Government having agreed to the proposal, however, made a mockery of the agreement by instituting a Committee by framing terms of reference, such that, the present proposal is the only the answer. The Government is now in a dilemma, as they do not know what would be the fate of the Project, if the Supreme Court does not allow the Polavaram Project. Knowing fully well, that the Project is yet to receive approval from the Supreme Court, the State Government has pressurized the Union Government to issue all clearances and they are making full efforts to get the Project included in the National Project Category. Telangana is not opposed to give water to the beneficiaries of the Project. What they are interested is that a series of small Projects could be built in place of the present Project, so that submergence can either altogether be avoided or kept minimum.

The essential dam break analysis forming part of disaster management study was required to be carried out properly by the Project Authorities and the results were necessarily required to be informed to the people in the public hearing. Certain vital information was deliberately concealed in the public hearing. It is a matter of interest to note that as compared to Sardar Sarovar Project and Tungabhadra Project, the ratio of area of submergence to the area benefited is too high in case of Polavaram. While it is 21.89% in case of Polavaram, it is 7.15% in Tungabhadra and a mere 1.77% in case of Sardar Sarovar.

SINGUR PROJECT:

The Singur Project across River Manjeera, Tributary to River Godavari came into existence in place of Devanur project, which was contemplated by the erstwhile Hyderabad Government. While the Devanur Project was basically aimed to generate power, the Singur Project was planned to originally achieve two fold objectives to arrest siltage and to stabilize storage in Nizamsagar. In addition to providing 8.35 TMC for stabilization of Nizamsagar ayacut, 4.06 TMC to Ghanpur ayacut, 4 TMC to the City water supply, 2 TMC was allotted for new ayacut in Medak District. But in reality, the Project has been converted into a water supply Project to serve the Twin Cities. The promised irrigation supplies to the Nizamsagar ayacut and Ghanpur ayacut have been made dependent on the water availability in Singur. Practically, the farmers of Nizamsagar and Ghanpur ayacut have felt that they are cheated, since original promise made to them for stabilization of Nizamsagar and Ghanpur anicut never materialized. Though, promises were made to give 2 TMC of water to irrigate 40,000 acres of new ayacut in Medak district, it was only a few years back that too at the instance of T.R.S. the G.O. in the matter was released. (Copy enclosed vide Annexure- XXXI) and still the water is not made available to the beneficiaries.

In fact, Manjeera has a limited potential of 99 TMC only and it cannot support the demands of water supply to Twin Cities, since, it has already commitment to irrigate the existing Ghanpur and Nizamsagar projects. (The relevant extract of report is at Annexure- XXXII)

The Committee constituted by Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1972, under the Chairmanship of Sri K.V. Srinivasa Rao, Chairman, A.P. State Electricity Board to consider and finalize additional resources for augmentation of

water supply to Twin Cities while expressing the limitation of Manjeera has expressed his views in the following words:

“It will not, therefore, be desirable to tap this River further for augmenting the water supply to Twin Cities…… Hence, it is suggested that detailed investigation may be carried out for tapping

water from Srisailam Hydro Electric Project”.

Despite clear recommendations of the High Power Technical Committee against diverting water from Manjeera and bringing water from Krishna, the Government has managed to get a report from the Department which opined that “The Manjeera has unutilized flows to the extent of 10 TMC per annum, which can be allotted to the Hyderabad

city for water supply”. They have also expressed that Krishna water Tribunal has not made any specific allocation of water from the River Krishna for water supply to the Twin Cities, which utterly is a false statement. Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal has specifically allocated 3.9 TMC towards water supply to Twin Cities. (relevant extracts at Annexure-XXXIII)

The fact is that then Minister for Municipal Administration Sri Challa Subba Rayudu, belonged to Rayalaseema region. Like any leader of the Rayalaseema he also was not in favour of utilizing Krishna waters for any other purpose, except for Rayalaseema. With this ill motive, the Government have entered into agreement with Karnataka, and made them to agree to permit construction of Singur in place of Devanur. Thus, Singur has come into existence to store waters from Manjeera to serve, mainly twin Cities and steal waters of Manjeera from the farmers of Telangana (Medak and Nizamabad districts). All this is done to help the Rayalaseema region at the cost of Telangana. This is a clear-cut example to show the discriminatory attitude of Government of Andhra Pradesh towards Telangana. When the farmers of Medak District opposed to Singur project, the Government promised to allocate 2 TMC from Singur to irrigate 40,000 acres of new ayacut in Medak district and they have issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No. 455, dated 31-10-1980. This promise is not fulfilled till to date. Only, at the instance of Telangana Rashtra Samithi the Government was forced to issue another G.O. in

the year 2005 for honouring their old commitment. (Copy enclosed wide Annexure-

XXXIV). However, the work is yet to be completed.

GHANPUR ANICUT:

As reported in the Government order 272, dated 07-10-1993 (Annexure-XXXIVA), the “Ghanpur ayacut scheme across Majeera River was constructed in 1905 for irrigating 30,000 acres in Medak district. The main crop grown in the ayacut is Paddy”.

The farmers under the Ghanpur ayacut were enjoying 4.06 TMC of Majeera waters and irrigating the designated ayacut without problems till the Singur Dam was constructed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Even during 1980 the Government vide G.O. No. 190, dated 12-04-1980 (Annexure-XXXIVB), the Government has reiterated its commitment on Singur Dam as follows: “Fathenahar and Mahabubnagar (Irrigation) as 4.06 TMC”. Both the nahars are canals taking off from the Ghanpur anicut. However, the real problem to the farmers of Ghanpur had arisen when the Government as a part of deal with the World Bank Authorities, who provided substantial assistance to the Project, agreed that they would operate the Singur Reservoir in accordance with the operating rules approved by the Bank. Accordingly, Government of Andhra Pradesh have laid down operating rules for Singur Reservoir specifying the minimum Reservoir levels for each month vide G.O. No. 93, dated 24-02-1990 (Annexure-XXXIVC). Further, in the said G.O. it is mentioned that “water for irrigation shall be released only when the water levels are higher

than minimum levels indicated ….”. Thus, the irrigation requirements of the ayacutdars, who have been enjoying their riparian rights since 1905 have been subordinated to the dictatorial conditions laid down by the World Bank agencies. Since then, each year the farmers of Ghanpur anicut had to go to the Government with begging bowls requesting them to release at least a fraction of their entitled share of water.

It can be seen that vide G.O.No. 10, dated 02-01-2009 (Annexure- XXXID), Government have permitted release of 1.95 TMC (against their entitlement of 4.06 TMC). Again vide G.O.No. 1000, dated 22-12-2009 (Annexure – XXXIVE), as a

one time measure, Government accorded permission for release of 0.3 TMC to irrigate 10,000 acres I.D. during Rabi 2009-10. Accordingly, this year the farmers raised the crops to extent of 10,000 acres after investing considerable amounts. The farmers, after utilizing 0.3 TMC waters released as first installment have been eagerly waiting for further releases, but in vain. Frustrated, with Government’s inaction in not releasing timely supplies, the farmers approached the Chairman, Human Rights, who gave favourable orders. Though, the Government have released waters now the same are of no utility to the farmers, since, by that time the crops have already wilted. The farmers had to undergo huge loss besides mental agony. This is the pathetic story of Telangana farmers in general and Singur ayacut in particular, who have to surrender their legal entitlements in favour of those, whom the Government considers as superiors. The hapless farmers of Ghanpur anicut are anxious to meet the Hon’ble Members of the Committee to recite their unending woes during their field visit to the Project.

NIZAMSAGAR PROJECT:

The erstwhile Government of Hyderabad constructed Nizamsagar Project in the year 1931 to irrigate 2.75 lakh acres of land utilizing 58 TMC of water. While the live storage of Reservoir was 25.6 TMC, dead storage was provided to the extent of 4.12 TMC. It was visualized that Devanur Project upstream of Nizamsagar would be taken up later for generating power and regulating supplies to Nizamsagar Project and also would act as silt arrester. In view of the developments that took place as explained in the above para, Devanur was dropped and Singur was converted as the water supply Project. Not only the Nizamsagar Project starved for the dependable supplies from upstream, it suffered badly on account of heavy siltation. Practically, it has lost 60% of its original capacity during the period of 42 years. Subsequently, the Government have raised the height of the Dam and improved the capacity of the Reservoir by 6 TMC. However, the position has not improved significantly and the Reservoir is not able to irrigate more than 1 lakh acres of the ayacut. In order to supply the

tail end areas, two lift schemes namely Alisagar and Gutpa to divert water of Godavari from upstream of Sriramsagar Project have been commissioned recently. This is the pathetic story of the glorious Project built by erstwhile Nizam Government (then it was considered as one of the biggest Project, in Asia) and stands as testimony of the utter negligence of the Andhra Pradesh Government, just because it is a Telangana Project.

INCHAMPALLY:

The Inchampally Project proposed downstream of confluence of Indrāvati and Godavari Rivers was found to be one of the best sites by the Central Water Commission. Though, an agreement was entered into between the States of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh on 07-08-1978, the work could not be proceeded ahead, since the Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra had objected to the 112.77 meter FRL, proposed for the Project by Andhra Pradesh. As per the agreement, the Telangana would get 80 TMC of water by gravity and 5 TMC by lift. Despite repeated consultations amongst the three States, in the presence of Union Government, no concurrence could be achieved to the proposal. The Union Government, instead, proposed a low Dam with the reduced FRL of 95 meters. Unfortunately, the Government of Andhra Pradesh rejected the Union Government’s proposal. Had the proposal of Government of India with reduced FRL accepted at that time (in the year 1995), the Low Dam would have materialized and Telangana reaped certain benefits. Further, Union Government offered financial assistance to build the Low Dam and were ready to mediate for settling the disputes arising out of submergence. Due to adamant attitude of the Government, the golden opportunity of having a low Dam was missed. Now, the State Government has changed its mind and prepared to have a Low Dam with 95 meter FRL. However, no discussions with the neighboring States have taken place. While it is a fact that Inchampally and Polavaram were having similar problems (the Government of India had difficulties in clearing the Projects

due to serious objections from the neighboring States as can be seen from the Annexure-

XXXV), the Polavaram Project was started by the State Government without any clearance from any authority or concurrence from the neighboring States, but

there was no progress at all in case of Inchampally. This clearly shows that the Government’s intentions lie in promoting the interests of Andhra, but not bothering about poor Telangana farmers.

LOWER PENGANGA PROJECT:

The Lower Penganga Project is a joint Project between state of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh on Penganga River, tributary of river Godavari. The project would benefit an ayacut of 27,300 ha in Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) and 2.27 lakh ha in Maharashtra. An agreement was concluded between the States on 6 th

October, 1975. It is a pity that even after 35 years, such a small project could not be commenced, as necessary persuasion from the State Government’s side was lacking.

LENDI INTER STATE PROJECT:

This is another Inter-State Major Irrigation Project of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra States. The Project would benefit 22,000 acres in Andhra Pradesh and 27,000 acres in Maharashtra. An agreement was concluded between the two States on 18-11-2003 to take up the Project as a joint venture. The apportioned cost to Andhra Pradesh is around 202.19 crores. So far only, Rs. 45 crores have been spent, which shows lack of interest in getting the Project executed early, since it is to benefit Telangana.

KINNERASANI PROJECT:

Kinnerasani Project built across Kinnerasani, a tributary of river Godavari, with an utilization of 8.14 TMC is envisaged to serve essentially the Kothagudem

Thermal Power Plant (KTPS), with installed capacity of 680 mw and irrigation for 10,000 acres besides meeting the drinking requirements of Kothagudem and Palvoncha towns of Khammam district of Telangana. The proximity of the Project to the Godavari Delta has become a curse to the Project, since, whenever there is shortage of water in the river Godavari to meet the crop requirements of Godavari Delta, even for second crop (Rabi season), the Government does not hesitate even for a second and issues immediate orders for release of waters from Kinnerasani Project, to augment the supplies to Godavari Delta, not minding the sufferings of stake-holders of the Project. On 16-01-2009, in a span of 27 days 2.40 TMC of waters from the Kinnerasani were released to benefit the farmers of Godavari Delta, without bothering the protests from the KTPS authorities and interests of power production. This has resulted in closure of 2 units of KTPS for 3 days, leading to a significant loss of power. Further, the residents of both the towns, namely, Kothagudem and Palvoncha suffered very badly due to lack of drinking waters. Though the National Water Policy accords first priority to the drinking water and the Supreme Court held that the right to drinking water is the fundamental right and it is the responsibility of the State to supply drinking water, yet the Government have released the water for irrigation purposes that too for a different Project. This only shows how the Government is inclined to promote the interests of Andhra region at the cost of Telangana. A visit to the Project by the Hon’ble Members of the Committee would be extremely helpful in understanding the real situation.

MINOR IRRIGATION

Minor irrigation system (mainly tank irrigation) was developed in Telangana by rulers of Kakatiya, Qutubshahi and Asafjahi dynasty. Every village was self-sufficient with food production and the entire village people were engaged with farming work and ancillary works

Before the merger of Hyderabad State with the Andhra state, Telangana had about 16,000 big tanks, each irrigating an area of more than 100 acres, 60,000 small tanks having irrigation capacity of less than 100 acres and about 4000 ‘kathwas’ & cross bunds which used to irrigate 5-10 acres each. Under these 70,000 tanks about 13 lakh acres were being irrigated. Farmers used to produce Paddy under these tanks. Maize, jowar, pulses, groundnut, seasum etc. were produced in the dry lands as rain fed crops. The tanks were so designed that the surplus flow from one would reach the other and so on to form a chain system.

At the time of allocation of assured water in Krishna & Godavari basins the quantum arrived under minor irrigation system of Telangana region was about 200TMC.This itself is an ample proof that minor irrigation system was functioning with success. For example, there are tanks like Ramappa, Paakala, Ghanpur and Laknavaram which are functioning successfully for more than 500 years and irrigating the registered ayacut.

As the Government did not respond either to take up new major irrigation projects or maintain the dilapidated tanks, the farmers of Telangana region were forced to go in for tube well irrigation system, to eke out their livelihood. Since the tube well irrigation system needs pumping the farmers were required to make huge investments in digging the bore wells as well for installing the pumping system. There are incidents when the farmers had to dig a number of bore wells before striking at a bore well yielding the requisite supplies of ground water. Today, the number of pumpsets working in Telangana are around 18 lakhs. On an average 3 acres under each pump set is irrigated. In this process, each farmer has incurred about a lakh of rupees per acre to continue irrigation under bore wells. Thus, Telangana farmers have invested more than Rs. 25,000 Crores during the last 45 years. The main problem faced by farmers irrigating under tube well is the erratic supply of electricity, which results in burning the motor and consequently incurring heavy expenditure. Also crop failure due to non availability of sufficient water is another cause worrying the farmers. The net

result is that the farmers, unable to meet the debt burden often tend to commit suicides.

Before the merger, Telangana had a total net irrigated area of 20 lakh acres comprising of around of 3 lakh acres from canals, 4 lakh acres from dug wells and balance 13 lakh acres from tanks. Thus, it can be seen that the major burden of providing irrigation to the area was on shoulders of tanks. In fact, tanks were considered as the lifeline of Telangana. There were 3-4 tanks, big and small in each village. Lot of attention was paid by the erstwhile rulers, Zamindars and landlords towards maintenance and up keep of tanks. However, after the merger with Andhra Pradesh, a false promise was given by Andhra rulers that most of the cultivable land of Telangana would be provided with canal irrigation. The Telangana people believed the Andhra rulers’ promises in good faith, since, at the time merger, out of the total net irrigated area 41 lakh acres in Coastal Andhra 27 lakh acres was under canal irrigation only. All the promises made by the Andhra rulers were proved to be futile. The Government’s statistics show that after 51 years i.e., during the year 2007-08 the canal’s irrigation in Telangana has increased by 2.65 lakh acres but the tank irrigation gone down by 9.25 lakh acres. Most of the tanks have either disappeared an account of urbanization or lost their retaining capacity due to lack of maintenance.

The combined irrigation from canals and tanks, for which the Government is mainly responsible has gone down by 6.6 lakh acres. Paradoxically, during this period the well irrigation which is entirely done at the cost of cultivators has gone up by 30 lakh acres. Mischievously, the Government, adding the well irrigation (which is done at the cost cultivators) with the combined irrigation of tanks and canals (both at the cost of Government) are claiming the credit for the increase in the total irrigation. On the other hand, in Coastal Andhra the combined irrigation from canals and tanks has increased during the same 50 years.

The details of net area irrigated from different sources namely canals, wells (tube & dug) and Tanks in Costal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana are at Annexure- XXXVI

Disparities in the area of ayacut irrigated in Telangana and Andhra regions:

The cultivable area in Andhra region is 215.39 lakh acres, whereas it is 175.19 lakh acres in Telangana. There is a wide disparity in the areas irrigated in between both the regions. As can be noticed from the Table given below, the area irrigated in Kharif season in Major Projects of Telangana as reported in the Outcome Budget for the year 2007-08 for Major, Medium and Minor Irrigation Projects, presented to the Assembly is quite astonishing. Whereas, the cultivable area of Andhra (215.39 lakh acres)is just 1.23 times to that of Telangana (175.19 lakh acres), the irrigated area under major irrigation projects of Andhra (39.1 lakh acres) is about 3 times to that of Telangana (12.9 lakh acres). If the area irrigated in Rabi is also taken into account, the gap between both the regions would further widen, since, no water is made available to the farmers during the Rabi season in Telangana. Even taking the cultivable areas into consideration the ratios will slightly change to 2.60:1. Thus, the area irrigated in Telangana under major projects, in any year, is much lower than that of Andhra and therefore incomparable.

ACTUAL AYACUT IRRIGATED (KHARIFF) IN MAJOR PROJECTS

(Lakh Acres)

S. No: Name of the Project: 2006-07Telangana

1. Nizamsagar 1.302. SRSP 6.273. NSLC 4.00*4. Jurala 1.025. RDS 0.31

Sub Total : 12.9Andhra

6. Vamsadhara 1.877. Godavari Delta 10.138. Krishna Delta 10.03

9.Pennar System including Somasila

0.24

10. KC Canal 2.7211. TBP LLC 0.2012. TBP HLC 0.8913. Yeleru 0.5314. NSRC 6.515. NSLC 2.5*16. TGP 0.7317. SRBC 0.60

Sub Total : 39.1Grand Total : 52.01

Ratio of area irrigated inAndhra to Telangana:

3.03:1

Percentage of area irrigated to cultivable

area in Telangana:7%

Percentage of area irrigated to cultivable

area in Andhra:

18.2%

Ratio of area irrigated inAndhra to Telangana

(considering respective cultivable areas)

2.6:1

* Approximate

Source: Outcome budget for Major, Medium and Minor Irrigation of Government of Andhra Pradesh for the year, 2007-08.

Different statistics at different occasions:

It is noticed that the Government is presenting different statistics at different occasions, to suit their convenience. The Director, Economics and Statistics present one type of statistics and the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department furnish other. To cite an example, the areas irrigated in Telangana and Andhra at the time of merger as presented by the Director of Economics and Statistics are 20.02 lakh acres and 51.45 lakh acres respectively, whereas the Irrigation and Command Area Development Department furnish these figures as 3.5 lakh acres and 30 lakh acres respectively. Same figures as worked out for the present year by the former are 43.7 lakh acres and 72.4 lakh acres as compared to 54.14 and 100.01 by the latter. One would wonder which is correct and what is to be taken into account.

MICRO IRRIGATION:

Under Jalayagnam Programme, the Government have taken up a number of lift irrigation schemes for Telangana. It was proposed to utilize 1 TMC of water for 10,000 acres of ayacut under this scheme. For example, Bheema Project has an ayacut of 2 lakh acres and the proposed utilization was 20 TMC. All of sudden, the Government has issued a controversial G.O. No. 34, dated 09-02-2007; (at

Annexure-XXXVII) introducing Micro Irrigation under all the lift schemes of Telangana. Vide this G.O. all the major Lift Irrigation Projects 100% ayacut is

proposed for Micro Irrigation duly proposing 15,000 acres for 1 TMC of water. With the introduction of this G.O., the field channels will no more be required and the water will be supplied to the crops directly, through Sprinkler and Drip System by using power. The Government’s objective apparently is two-fold (1) to drastically reduce the allocation of water to the lift schemes of Telangana. (2) To make the irrigation a costly affair, so that the people would opt out from agricultural business.

The Government have thoughtlessly introduced the G.O., even without thinking whether it would be possible to irrigate around 50 lakh acres, which are proposed under lift schemes in Telangana, through Micro Irrigation. The Government never paid any attention, whether irrigation of crops through Micro Irrigation on such a big scale is adopted any where in the Country or elsewhere. On one hand, the Government issued the order to bring all the lift irrigation schemes under this programme and on the other hand stated a pilot Project will be taken up under AMR Project in Nalgonda as an experimental basis.

The National Water Policy (2001) emphasized that Sprinkler and Drip system of irrigation should be adopted wherever feasible. The Water Management Manual of Ministry of Water Resources, the Water Management Publication of Indian National Academy of Engineering, the Publications on ‘Sprinkler Irrigation’ and ‘Drip Irrigation’ of Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Publication of Micro Irrigation Manual of Water Technology Centre, IARI and proceedings of National Work Shop on Micro Irrigation of Ministry of Agriculture have clearly brought out that Micro Irrigation is most suited for horticultural crops, Vegetables etc. The limitation for adopting this method is its high initial cost, which is beyond the purchasing capacity of small and marginal farmers and thus mainly adopted by large farmers. Even in the developed Country like U.S.A. not even 40% of the irrigated area is practiced under Micro Irrigation. Due to high initial cost, poor institutional support system, lack of skilled human resources etc. the Micro Irrigation has not been adopted by the farmers in the Country. Even in the advanced States like Gujarat and Maharashtra, the system did not go well

with the farmers. Knowing fully well the farmers of Telangana are poor and would be unable to meet the high cost associated which Drip and Sprinkler System, the way in which the Government have issued the orders without consulting the experts or farmers only leads to thinking that the Government’s action is deliberate, to steal the waters of Telangana and keep the farmers of Telangana perennially below the poverty line.

MODERNIZATION OF SCHEMES

In Coastal Andhra all the three deltas, namely, Godavari, Krishna and Penna have been modernized. Lot of expenditure has been incurred by the Government towards the same. While Krishna Delta modernization was taken up during the Andhra Government’s tenure and completed in 1956, modernization of other two deltas was carried out in Andhra Pradesh. K.C. Canal was modernized with Japanese assistance recently. However, not even a single modernization scheme in Telangana; either RDS or Sadarmatt has been contemplated by Andhra rulers. It is only recently, RDS is taken up for modernization, as per the Government report.

KC CANAL:

KC Canal is envisaged to draw 39.9 TMC of Tungabhadra waters. Of This quantity 8 TMC has been sacrificed in favour of Srisailam Right Bank Canal. It was expected that the KC Canal would manage the entire envisaged ayacut with 31.9 TMC only. However, in reality each year it is drawing more than 50-60 TMC, illegally, taking the share of Telangana from RDS as explained in earlier paras.

Now, Government unethically decided that 10 TMC of Krishna water would be diverted from Srisailam to KC Canal, so as to compensate the loss, which it has

under gone on account of curtailment of its share of 10 TMC of Tungabhadra waters to be supplied to Tungabhadra High Level Canal. However, the Government has accorded approval to divert 5 TMC of water to KC Canal from Srisailam Reservoir, vide G.O. No. 196, dated 31-08-2007. Even on earlier occasions also Krishna Waters were dropped into Nippulavagu, through Pothireddipadu Head Regulator to irrigate KC Canal ayacut, as can be seen from the excerpts from the budget speech of 1987-88 made in Andhra Pradesh Assembly.

(Relevant extract at Annexure-XXXVIII)

It is not understood how Government takes a decision in violation of Bachawat Tribunal. KC Canal is not to draw any Krishna waters as per the award of the Tribunal. But the present Government does everything, at its will, to benefit Rayalaseema area in particular and Andhra area in general, at the cost of Telangana.

SUNKESULA BARRAGE:

Sunkesula anicut was modernized recently with Japanese assistance and now it is a barrage with a storage capacity of 1.2 TMC. It is essentially aimed to serve the KC Canal. In the old anicut there were few openings to release water to the river for the use of downstream users of Telangana region. In the new Barrage Gate No. 30 was reserved for this purpose and therefore, it was supposed to be kept open. Most surprisingly, illegally, the Project Authorities have made arrangements to close the gate on a permanent basis to prevent the water to flow downstream. In spite of several requests made by the downstream villagers that they are suffering for want of drinking water, the authorities did not open the gate, which was required to be done not only from humanitarian angle also from environmental consideration.

This reveals how the Government is showing favours to Andhra areas under pressure and not bothered about the interests of downtrodden and weaklings of Telangana.

JALAYAGNAM – A FARCE

The Jalayagnam, a mighty and prestigious Project undertaken by the Government in the year 2004 proved to be a farce and can be considered as a joke of the decade. When it started, it was announced that 26 Projects out of which 8 would be completed in two years, and the rest 18 would be completed in five years, at a cost of Rs. 46,000 crores and would provide irrigation to a new area of 65 lakh acres. Five years have elapsed. Not even a single Project worth the name is complete, but around Rs. 50,000 crores have been spent on this programme. As if this stunt is not adequate, the Government has increased the number of Projects to 82 and they intend to bring 1 crore acres under irrigation besides stabilizing a few lakh acres.

Except a few schemes like Flood Flow Canal, SRSP stage-II, most of them have no clearances from the Planning Commission. The schemes which have been formulated and are under construction in Krishna basin are dependant on surplus flows (not dependable flows) for which new Tribunal is yet to sanction the allocation. Lot of Projects have the problem of land acquisition. Mega Projects such as Polavaram are facing legal problems and are under the purview of Supreme Court. Inter-State problems affect many projects. Unless Union Government comes to help the Projects, they may not be completed in another 30-40 years. The cost of the 82 Projects is estimated as Rs. 1.76 lakh crores. But this may go up to Rs. 3-4 lakh crores by the time of completion.

The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) for the year ended 31st March, 2008 has clearly brought out that “the Projects were awarded without prior acquisition of land and this resulted in majority of the Projects on which

substantial expenditure has been incurred getting stalled mid-way and non-creation of

envisaged irrigation potential”. Further, the Report stated that “ even in respect of the Projects where the irrigation potential is stated to have been created, no supporting ayacut registers, water release schedules, etc., were maintained by the Water Users Associations. Thus, the irrigation potential stated to have been created and utilized could not be verified”

As far as Telangana is concerned the Government has announced a number of lift schemes. A scheme like Pranahitha-Chevella costs around Rs. 40,000 crores. Many Schemes have not yet been investigated and detailed Project reports are not prepared. Even in case of SRSP Stage-II, which is an approved Project by the Planning Commission, Government is confused as to from which source they should feed the canals. Huge power is required to run these lift schemes. The power schemes have not yet commenced. Without supply of power, no body knows how these lift schemes, even if they are completed, would function. Everything is in pell-mell.

POWER PROJECTS UNDER BOT

It is assessed that the power requirement is around 6100 MW to make all the above lift schemes operational. The present generating capacity of the State is 7800 MW. Obviously, the State has to take up a number of power schemes on war footing. Further, the Government have time and again announced that free power will be provided to the farmers for their lift schemes. Now, it is understood that the Government have contemplated to hand over the proposed power projects to private agencies on BOT basis, instead of Genco, Government Agency. It is not understood, how the Government would be able to make available the power in adequate quantity to the farmers, free of cost, if all the power projects are handed over to private agencies. Evidently, the Government is saying something and doing something. It is apprehended, that Government would not be able to provide energy to the farmers either free of cost or at affordable price, if the power schemes are with the private agencies.

Why all this Drama?

Appeasing the Telangana with number of schemes which may not materialize in the near future, for want of funds and energy and Coastal Andhra with Polavaram, which may not see the day of the light, is done only with the sole intention of diverting as much Krishna waters as possible from Srisailam through Pothireddipadu Head Regulator and schemes such as HNSS to the Rayalaseema. In order to compensate the loss due to such act of diversion of dependable flows from Srisailam the downstream users are promised with Pulichinthala, Polavaram and Dummugudem-Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond.

Government is fully aware that they have no funds for execution of the Jalayagnam programme. They also know that unless the projects are cleared by Planning Commission neither funds from Union Government, nor from any external agency would be available. Still Government is making tall promises that Projects namely, Polavaram, Pranahitha-Chevella, Yellampally, Devadula etc. would be brought under National Projects Category. Further, Government is publicizing that it is spending around fifty percent of irrigation funds in Telangana and creating sufficient irrigation potential. Either, spending huge sums (which mostly are pocketed by contractors, politicians and officials) or creating potential is not the answer. The real problem is how much water is delivered and how many acreages are benefited. The Government draws flak on the query.

The Government have come up recently with a full page advertisement in the vernacular Press, ( Annexure – XXXVIIIA ) highlighting their achievements under ‘Jalayagnam’. In the category of the Projects completed, they have listed out 12 Projects through which they have claimed a new ayacut of 1, 31,254 acres besides stabilization of 1, 89, 379 acres. Even, assuming the claims of the Government to be correct, it is seen that in Telangana only one medium scheme namely Gaddena Suddavagu has been completed with an ayacut of just 14,000 acres (against the total of 1,31,254 acres) and two Projects have been

completed by means of which around 90,000 acres have been stabilized. In the category of Projects which have been partially completed claims have been made that in Telangana 3, 80,800 acres have been added as new ayacut. The claim of the Government is utterly false, since, neither Alimineti Madhava Reddy Project nor Sriram Sagar Project Phase - II, (the major Projects included in the list) have added any new ayacut so far, since, the distributory system is incomplete and particularly the field channels are not dug so far. The position could be verified from the field visits by the Hon’ble Members of the Committee.

The above acts only show how the Government is trying to mislead the Telangana people by raising false hopes. While dreams of Telangana would remain unfulfilled which the Government is fully aware, the scheme of diverting Godavari waters to Krishna basin and Krishna waters to Rayalaseema would materialize.

Release of G.O.s with Jet Speed:

It has been observed that the Government will not take much time to issue G.O., if the Project is to benefit either Coastal Andhra or Rayalaseema provided they are the pet Projects of the decision maker. The classic examples those can be cited are: 1) Polavaram and 2) Pothireddipadu. In case of Polavaram, the Chief Engineer sends the proposals to the Government on 24-08-2004 and the G.O. is issued sanctioning the Project on 10-09-2004, just within 17 days. In case of Pothireddipadu, the proposals of the Chief Engineer are sent on 20-08-2005 and the Government issued the G.O. approving the scheme on 13-09-2005, just within three weeks. Similar facility was never available to any of the Projects of Telangana.

The apprehensions of formation of Telangana State:

The Government is fully aware that the formation of Telangana state is certain and may materialize at any time. Therefore, they are showing undue haste in completing the Rayalaseema Projects. Infact, the work is going on at Pothireddipadu Head Regulator with jet speed, under search lights and full police protection. These sorts of arrangements are never seen at any other Project. The Members of the Commission may kindly verify the position during their field visit to Pothireddipadu Head Regulator. The Government is not at all bothered whether the Telangana Projects are constructed or not. They only want that before the formation of the new State, all the Projects in Rayalaseema region should get ready, so that they can claim waters on ‘prior use’ basis later.

Telangana a rich region remaining so poor:

In the Memorandum by the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee on Pochampadu Project it is stated “The soils in Telangana area mostly red and loamy are eminently suited for intensive irrigation… The cultivators, whose main food is rice and main crop paddy, are ever ready to make immediate use of irrigation facilities, when ever the later are made available to them…. Telangana is a deficit in food in spite of the excellent possibilities of irrigation by river water. The River systems in Telangana carry more water…. One does not find many parallels in the Country, where such a rich region is so poor as is the case with

Telangana” (Extract vide Annexure-XXXIX). In the same memorandum Dr. M. Chenna Reddy, the President Member on Sub Committees of Planning and Development of Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee explained that while in State like Punjab, there was more than 50% irrigation by Canals, in Telangana only 2% was by Canals, although the capacity of the rivers of Telangana was more than that of the rivers in the Punjab. (Extract vide Annexure-XXXX).

The U.O. Note of Planning and Local Administration Department of 12-01-1960 has clearly brought out that there was a gap of 12.67% in the percentage of gross area irrigated to total available cultivable area between the two regions of Andhra and Telangana up to 1955-56 (before merger). This gap has increased to 18.08% after the development of various schemes proposed in the first and second five year plans. (Vide Annexure-XXXXI). In the 19th report of Sub Committee

on Planning of Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee it is stated that “there is much

difference in proportion of expenditures of both the regions”.

(Extract vide Annexure-XXXXII).

From the above, it is evident that from the beginning the Telangana region was neglected intentionally, by not sanctioning the Projects, by not providing funds and delaying the Projects. The importance of irrigation to Telangana was realized long time back as can be seen from the report of the Indian Irrigation Commission of 1901-03, page 238-quoted below

“General Conclusions: - with reference then to the general question of the utility of the irrigation in Hyderabad it may be said that in the Telangana and certain portions of the Carnatic tracts, which comprised more than half the total area of Hyderabad, irrigation is vitally essential to the well-being of the people and to the general prosperity of the State and that the soil is

suited to it and the people are eager for it…..”. (Extract vide Annexure-XXXXIII)

Conclusions:

Telangana was a State before 1956 under the name of Hyderabad. Two mighty Rivers having catchments of 68.5% (Krishna) and 79% (Godavari) flow through Telangana. The soils are excellent and suitable for cultivation being red and loamy. The cultivators are hard working and are ever ready to make use of irrigation facilities. Having such excellent resources, one would wonder why this region remained backward even after 55 years of merger with Andhra, which is prosperous in agriculture, because of Canal network. This leads to a simple conclusion that this region has not remained backward on its own but purposely kept backward by the vested interests.

The merger which was done against the wishes of Telanganaites was because of vast water resources available in Krishna and Godavari. The love of Andhra

towards Telangana is not borne out of affection because of language or culture, only because of excellent water resources amongst many other virtues, which would create a mass wealth. One TMC of water would easily fetch around 4 crores in each season. Telangana, in integrated Andhra Pradesh State has lost thousands of TMCs of Krishna and Godavari waters by the unethical, illegal and other dubious means adopted by Andhra rulers. There is no other way to bring out Telangana from the clutches of Andhra and place it on of the glory and prosperity except by creating a separate State.

Employment

The experience of people of Telangana in the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh with regard to public employment is an experience of fraternal betrayal.

Agreements Flouted:

Before the merger of Telangana with Andhra, there was a regulation called Mulki Rule which was intended to reserve jobs in government service and seats in the educational institutions exclusively for the natives of Telangana who had a stay of at least 12 years in the region. One of the conditions for the merger of Telangana with Andhra was continuance of this regulation. It was also incorporated in the Gentlemen’s Agreement.

Like all other conditions of the Agreement, this clause also was observed more in its breach. The Mulki Rule was either relaxed indiscriminately or ignored intentionally. Job seekers from Andhra area were also encouraged and patronized for getting into employment in Telangana by obtaining false Mulki Certificates. This went on unabated for more than a decade. The number of such illegal entrants into Telangana job field was estimated to have crossed a disturbing number of 24,000. It became one of the major factors for the revolt of people of Telangana in 1968-69, which took the turn of an intense agitation demanding separation of Telangana from Andhra.

Then the government of the time tried -- or pretended -- to undo the damage by convening an all party meeting in January 1969. A decision was taken to repatriate all those irregular and illegal entrants to their native regions by creating supernumerary positions, if necessary; and, to fill the resultant vacancies in Telangana by the local candidates, then called Mulkis. A Government Order (the infamous GO 36) was issued in this regard. Instead of implementing this GO, certain important political leaders of Andhra of the time opposed it and instigated the illegal entrants to approach the court of law not only to get the GO 36 cancelled, but also to question the constitutional validity of the very Mulki Rule. After a prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Mulki Rules. Thereby the repatriation of those 24,000 employees became inevitable.

Supreme Court’s Judgment Annulled:

When the Chief Minister of the time, PV Narasimha Rao, expressed satisfaction over the verdict of the Supreme Court, the Andhra elite and employees resorted to a counter agitation. Their demand was to annul the judgment of the Supreme Court, scrap all the safeguards, given to the Telangana region at the time of its merger with Andhra, or to create Andhra State, bifurcating Andhra Pradesh. The agitation took a violent turn leading to the dismissal of PV Narasimha Rao government and imposition of President’s Rule. During that period the Andhra lobby once again prevailed upon the national leadership. The national leadership, as usual, succumbed to the manipulative skills of the political leaders of Andhra and got annulled the judgment of the highest judicial authority of India in a most undemocratic manner.

It did not stop at that. Illegal appointments of 24,000 Non Mulki employees were made legal. All other safeguards given to Telangana as a precondition for its merger were scrapped without any conscience. As an alternative, a diluted formula, which has come to be known as Six Point Formula, was foisted on the people. Under this formula, the duration of residential requirement to become a local candidate was reduced from 12 years to 4 years; the State was divided into six zones and the word Mulki

was replaced by Local Candidate. All of this has been mere eyewash. It came into operation in 1975 through a Presidential Order. And, its violation also started simultaneously.

Yet Another Formula Violated:

The violation of the Six Point Formula has been so persistent, that by 1985, i.e. in a span of 10 years, about 60,000 non locals illegally infiltrated into the government jobs in Telangana, and deprived the local candidates of Telangana of their rightful claim on these jobs. This figure was arrived at by a couple of committees of officials constituted by the State Government itself. The result was another spell of unrest, especially among the youth and the employees. The Government of the time was, therefore, compelled to issue another order (the most infamous GO 610) in December 1985 for repatriating those 60,000 employees illegally appointed in Telangana to their native zones by creating supernumerary positions if necessary, and for appointing local candidates of the Telangana area in the resultant vacancies. It was categorically stated in the said GO that it would be implemented before 31st March1985. 25 years have rolled by; but, ironically, it is yet to be implemented. It is necessary to know in this context that a similar GO was issued in the same month i.e. December 1985, to repatriate a few employees from Andhra to Telangana, with the same condition of implementing it by 31st March 1985. It was implemented much before the stipulated time.

An Unending, Vain Exercise:

Implementation of the so called GO 610 has been under the “ACTIVE CONSIDERATION” for the last 25 years involving seven successive Chief Ministers -- NT Rama Rao (twice), M Chenna Reddy, N Janardhan Reddy, K Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, N Chandra Babu Naidu (twice) YS Rajasekhara Reddy (more than once) and K Rosiah – what a galaxy! They were assisted by a Commission of Enquiry, House Committees of the State Legislature, Ministers Committees, Officers Committees, Consultative Committees and so on – What a marathon exercise! And the exercise is still on and the issue is still there where it was 25 years ago. The figure of

60,000 pertains to pre 1985 period. The figure of such illegal entrants has further swelled in the post 1985 period and the Government is “SINCERELY” striving to work out this figure!

Can there be a crueler joke than this? What about those thousands and thousands of Telangana boys and girls who are deprived of their legitimate source of livelihood? Have they not been pushed to the woods? Were they not thrown on to the streets? Are they not compelled to become almost refugees in the Gulf? Such is their misery, agony and trauma, while the illegal nonlocal occupants of the jobs are enjoying life at the expense of the locals. Is it possible to make any assessment of such a devastating damage done to the youth of this region?

Fair Share, Never Given:

There is yet another factor that needs greater attention. There is a specific condition in the scheme of things to ensure a fair share to all regions with regard to staffing pattern in all state level offices including Secretariat. The intention obviously is to maintain their levels, proportionate to the population of the respective regions. As of now, Telangana component of the staff in these offices is hardly 10% instead of 41%, that too, mostly at the lowest levels of the hierarchy. Here it is not the question of mere number of jobs. The issues involved are of greater significance with consequences of a far reaching nature. It involves the question of meaningful and effective participation in the administration of the State concerning formulation of policies and programmes, and their implementation, at the highest levels of the system. In the Indian situation, it is the bureaucracy that controls and commands the administrative machinery of the state. In the Andhra Pradesh bureaucratic set up, the Telangana element is extremely insignificant. As a result, the State’s administration has become alien and inaccessible to the people of Telangana. Even the position of political leaders, including several ministers too is in no way different. It is well known that the damage caused to the Telangana interests by the non-Telangana and anti-Telangana

bureaucracy of the State is equal, if not more, than the harm done by the political leadership.

The antipathy of Andhra leadership, connivance of anti-Telangana bureaucracy and the marginalization of Telangana political leadership have pushed the people of Telangana into the present plight. They can extricate themselves from it only through self rule.

(Detailed Notes on the issue are appended.)

The Government of India have referred the matter to this Hon’ble

Committee with following terms and reference as fallows:

“To examine the situation in the state of Andhra Pradesh with reference to the

demand for a separate state of Telangana as well as the demand maintaining the

present status of the United Andhra Pradesh” and other terms and conditions.

The aspirations of people of Telangana have been ignored by the nation

until a decade ago. Now the people outside A.P. are aware about the

movement for separate State of Telangana. But still, the nation is ignorant

about the history, Socio-economic conditions and exploitation of resources

of Telangana due to the fact that they do not have enough facts at their

disposal. Why the Telugu speaking people of Telangana are demanding

separate State? Is a simple question, but yet to be understood by the

fellow countrymen. The people of Telangana are asking for justice from the

nation and spear heading movements in various forms consistently since

1952 but the nation miserably failed to appreciate it. The Telangana

movement has not been recognized as a people’s movement and always

dubbed as a movement of unemployed politicians. The Telangana

movement though massive in strength is pitted against the motivated and

leading propaganda of powerful colonial Andhra rulers and State machinery

under their control and of course, the influential media run by the Andhra

Capitalists.

HISTORY OF HYDERABAD STATE:

As history reveals that Hyderabad state was one among the several other

princely states of India. It was also enjoyed a status of separate sovereign

country as it had embassies in 110 countries all over the world including

present Hyderabad House in New Delhi. The then Nizam state was the

seventh richest in the world. The then Nizam state had its own constitution

and its own Government consisting cabinet headed by the Prime Minister,

executive and legislature. It is also evident from the fact the no one

represented from this Nizam state to constituent Assembly in 1948 which

had given a constitutional document to the nation.

Our ancestors have struggled against Nizams to emancipate the people

from yoke of feudal lords to have democratic and republic form of state as a

Unit within the Union of India, notwithstanding the fact that there was no

delegates from our Nizam Country in a Constituent Assembly. In the said

armed struggle more than 4000 people have been sacrified their lives. As

a result we expected that the Union of India would protect self respect, self

rule and prevent from exploitations of any kind to our posterity. After the

fall of Nizam, the Princely State of Hyderabad, the biggest and richest,

became a part of Union of India in 1948 one year later to the Indian

Independence. Since then, Hyderabad State was administered by the Govt.

of India for four years. In 1952 the first general elections were held in the

country so also in the State of Hyderabad. A popular Govt. lead by Sri

Burgula Ramakrishna Rao took over the administration of Hyderabad State

from the Govt. of India and continued till the formation of A.P. State in

1956.

On the other hand, the Govt. of India formed State of Andhra in October

1953 bifurcating Telugu speaking districts of Madras succumbing to the

violent demonstrations after the death of Sri Potti Sriramulu who under took

fast undo death for the formation of Andhra State along with Madras city as

its capital. But Andhra State was formed and Kurnool was made its capital

owing to the Sri Bagh pact signed by the leaders of Andhra and

Rayalaseema.

STATES RE-ORGANIZATION COMMISSION:

In December 1953, the Govt. of India appointed a State Reorganization

Commission, consisting of Justice Fazal Ali, Chairman, H.N. Kunjroo and

K.M.Panikkar as members to investigate the conditions of the problems,

historical background, the existing situation and bearing of all important and

relevant factors thereon and make recommendations. The commission

worked for 22 months and presented its report in October, 1955 with its

recommendations.

In regard to the future of Hyderabad State, which comprises Marathwada

(Marathi speaking Region), Telangana (Telugu speaking region) and

Kannada speaking areas, the commission made a detailed study of (i) case

of Vishalandhra (ii) Case of Telangana. After taking into consideration all

these aspects, the Commission recommended that: (at para 386 at P.No.

107)

“After taking all these factors into considerations, we have come to a conclusion

that it will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the present, the

Telangana area is constituted into a separate State, which may be known as the

Hyderabad State, with the provision for its unification with Andhra after the

general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by two – third majority the

legislature of the residuary Hyderabad express itself in favour of such

unification” ( Para 386 )

Further, in para 388, the commission recommended that “Andhra and

Telangana have common interests and we hope these interest will find to bring

the people closure the each other. If, however, our hopes for the development of

the environment and conditions congenial to the unification of the areas do not

materialize and if public sentiment in Telangana Crystallizes itself against the

unification of the two States, Telangana will have to continue as a separate unit”.

In spite of the expert opinion of the SRC for the formation of Hyderabad

(Telangana) State, the time factor along with subsequent option to the

Telangana legislators for the unification of Telangana with Andhra, the

protagonists of unification exploited the situation and influenced the

congress High Command to decide in favour of unification. 80% of the

people of Telangana were in favour of separate State but there were two

camps among the congress leaders on Telangana, the separatists lead by

the Chief Minister Sri Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, supported by K.V.Ranga

Reddy, Dr.M.Chenna Reddy, Sri J.V. Narsinga Rao etc., the integrationists

lead by Swamy Ramananda Tirtha and others.

The Telangana Central Committee was spear heading the agitation for

Telangana State and while the agitation was gaining momentum there

came a sudden and surprising change in the stand of Sri Burgula

Ramakrishna Rao, who became the protagonist for unification. The

Congress High Command, influenced by the lobbying of Andhra leaders,

having succeeded in splitting the separatist’s camp and maneuvered to

pressurize Sri K.V.Ranga Reddy, Dr.M.Chenna Reddy and others to

change their stand. The sub-committee of AICC dealing with State

reorganization held a series of meetings with the leaders of separatists and

integrationists and Congress High Command ultimately decided to merge

Telangana with Andhra without considering the wishes and apprehensions

of the people of Telangana and dishonored the expert opinions of the SRC.

It is noteworthy to mention that the then Union Home Minister Pandit

G.B.Pant stated in the Parliament that Vishalandra would be formed only

with the acceptance of the people of Telangana. But without ascertaining

the aspirations of the people of Telangana for a separate State, on March

5, 1956, the then Prime Minister Sri Jawaharlal Nehru, while addressing a

Mamath Public Meeting at Nizamabad, declared that the Union Govt. had

decided to merge Telangana with Andhra. The Govt. of India having

accepted the recommendation of the SRC to disintegrate Hyderabad State

did not care the recommendation for the formation of a separate State for

Telangana. The people of Telangana lived in servitude for centuries under

the feudal rulers. For the first time in the history, they had elected a

popular Govt. of their own in 1952 to govern themselves. Hardly they did

breathe the air of freedom for four years they were again subjected to

economic, political and cultural colonization by the Andhras, much against

their wishes and recommendations of an expert commission as anticipated

by Jawahalal Nehru.

Though the Govt. of India took decision in the year 1956 in favour of

unification, the unification was not unconditional and subject to conditions

in Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Andhras promised certain safeguards to

the people of Telangana in the form of resolutions in Andhra State

Assembly. The first assembly resolution was moved by the Andhra Chief

Minister Sri B.Gopala Reddy on 25.11.1955. It says, “This assembly would

further like to assure the people of Telangana, that the development of Telangana

would be deemed to be a special charge and that certain priorities and special

protection will be given for the improvement of Telangana Region such as

reservation in services and educational institutions on the basis of population”.

The resolution further says “This is not something that is done by us in

response to their demand. It is specially mentioned in this resolution in order to

convey to them through this assembly the unanimous opinion and voice of all the

parties in this that we would look after them generously. The Govt. have

absolutely no objection to concede to them all the opportunities that are intended

for Telangana people”.

The Second Assembly Resolution was moved by the Andhra Deputy Chief

Minister Sri N.Sanjeeva Reddy on 1.2.1956. It says “in regard to the

appointments and employment in Telangana region they seem to be having some

fears that educationally more advanced people from Andhra region might usurp

all avenues of employment depriving Telangana people of their due share. I want

to make it clear that we do not want anything in your share of employment. We

are assuring you that we would not touch your 1/3 share in employment. Such an

assurance was made not only on my personal behalf but also on behalf of this

assembly and Govt.”.

FORMATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH STATE & GENTLEMEN’S AGREEMENT:

Though, the people from the Telangana were against the merger with

Andhra State, the Union Government against the General will of the people

has forcefully merged the Telangana with Andhra State. We desired that

the Government of India would act as protector of our interest and

safeguard the interest of people as per the Gentleman agreement.

Government of India in 1956 evinced over enthusiasm to merge the

Telangana with Andhra, later, in the course of time has completely ignored

in implementation of the safeguard as assured in the Gentleman

agreement. According to this agreement safe guards in the matters relating

to Telangana revenues, educational facilities, recruitment and retrenchment

of service personnel, the position of Urdu, domicile rules, sale of

agricultural lands were guaranteed. This agreement guaranteed (i) the

continuance of Mulki rules promulgated by the Nizam Govt. in 1919 through

a Farman, (ii) constitution of Telangana Regional Council with a view to

secure it’s all round development with its needs and requirements. It will

be a statutory body empowered to deal with and decide about planning and

development, irrigation and other projects, Industrial development, within

the general plan and recruitment to services in so far as they relate

Telangana area. The TRC will control the sales of agricultural lands in

Telangana laks of lands could not get validated until the TRS approved

them. (iii) The agreement provides that if the Chief Minister is from Andhra,

the Deputy Chief Minister will be from Telangana and vice-versa. Apart

from this, a detailed note on safeguards proposed for Telangana in the light

of conclusions arrived at on 14 items in the Gentlemen’s agreement was

signed on 14.8.1956 by the signatories of the agreement. The State of

Andhra Pradesh came into existence on November,1, 1956 Hyderabad as

its capital and Sri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy sworn in as Chief Minister of

Andhra Pradesh State.

Parliament, in effect, gave statutory recognition to this agreement by

making the necessary constitutional amendment in Art. 371 providing for

the constitution of the Telangana Regional Committee. The Constitution

(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, inter alia, substituted a new Article 371

for the old, the relevant part of which reads as follows.

“371. Special provision with respect to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and

Bombay. – (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may,

by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh……provide for the

constitution and functions of regional committees of the Legislative Assembly of

the State; for the modifications to be made in the rules of business of the

Government and in the rules of procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the

State and for any special responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the

proper functioning of the regional committees”.

MULKI RULES:

The Mulki Rules formed part of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations

promulgated in obedience to His Exalted Highness the Nizam’s Firman

dated 25th Ramzan 1337 H. The State of Hyderabad was then a native

Indian State which had not acceded to the Dominion of India after the

Indian Independence Act, 1947. Chapter III of the Regulations, contained

in Article 39 which reads as follows:

“ 39. No person will be appointed in any Superior or Inferior service without the

specific sanction of His Exalted Highness, if he is not a Mulki in terms of the rules

laid down in Appendix ‘N’. Any person, whose domicile is cancelled under para 9

of the Mulki rules, will be considered to have been dismissed from his post from

the date of such cancellation.”

The following rules in Appendix ‘N’ may be set out:

“1. A person shall be called a Mulki if –

(a) By birth he is a subject of the Hyderabad State, or

(b) By residence in the Hyderabad State be has been entitled to be

Mulki or

(c) his father having completed 15 years of service was in the

Government service at the time of his birth or

(d). She is a wife of a person who is a Mulki

2. A person shall be called a subject of the Hyderabad State by birth at

the time of whose birth his father was a Mulki.

3. A person shall be called Mulki who was a permanent resident of the

Hyderabad State for at least 15 years and has abandoned the idea of

returning to the place of his previous residence and has obtained an

affidavit to that effect on a prescribed form attested by a Magistrate.

4. Whether a Mulki woman marries a non-Mulki but does not give up her

residence in the Hyderabad State her rights which she enjoys by virtue of

her being a Mulki shall not be affected in any way.

5. Where a woman is a Mulki, marries a non-Mulki and resides outside

the Hyderabad State along with her husband and returns to reside

permanently in the Hyderabad State after the death of her husband or after

obtaining a judicial separation shall again be called a Mulki, but her children

shall be called non-Mulki, unless they are entitled to be Mulki under these

rules.

6. Subject to the above provisions the Taluqdar, Hyderabad District for

Hyderabad City and Hyderabad District and the Taluqdar of the District in

the District shall be competent to grant Mulki-Certificate on the prescribed

form provided that the father of the applicant prior to his residence in the

Hyderabad State or appointment in the Hyderabad Government service or

the applicant himself prior to his residence in the Hyderabad State:

Violations of Gentlemen’s agreement in regard to continuation of

Mulki Rules:

Violation of Mulki Rules began in 1948 itself soon after erstwhile

Hyderabad State joined the Indian Union. The Govt. of India appointed

Vellodi, an ICS Officer, as the Civil Administrator for Hyderabad State to

help the Military till a popular Govt. took over the reins of administration in

1952. During these 4 years thousands of employees from Madras State

were brought to Hyderabad State in the disguise that they knew English in

violation of Mulki Rules. Thousand of employees of Hyderabad State

especially Muslims were mercilessly removed from their services. The

public could not express their resentment over these recruitments and

retrenchments since there were no civil rights under the military

administration.

Soon after the popular Govt. took over the Administration in 1952 agitation

against the non-mulkies broke out in Telangana. “Idli – Sambar go back”

and “Non-mulkies go back” were the slogans of the agitation. Instead of

sending the non-mulkies back, the Govt. used police force to crush the

agitation. Police resorted to lathi charge and firing hundreds of students

were put in jails and at least 13 students were killed in the police firings. At

last the Mulki agitation was brutally crushed and the non-mulkies continued

in their services.

After the formation of A.P. State in 1956 an exodus of employees from

Andhra Region was encouraged by the Govt. of A.P. into Telangana

relaxing the mulki rules on administrative grounds and issued mulki

certificates to the non-mulkies and allowed them to infiltrate in to the jobs

reserved for mulkies. The Telangana Regional Committee time and again

prepared reports with concrete evidences on the violations of mulki rules

and submitted to the Govt. for rectification. TRC reports and

representations of Telangana Employees Associations were ignored by the

Govt. Numbers of persons registered in Employment Exchanges in

Telangana region from Andhra Region were 7269 as on 1.11.1968, out of

total registrations of 53,626. On the number non-mulkies in Telangana,

Govt. circles estimated it to be nearly 5000, but according to the figures

collected by the Telangana NGO’s Union the figure was nearly 10,000

which included teachers, medical staff, surveyors, electricity employees

etc. to this extent the employment opportunities to Telangana youth were

denied. As per the rule-3 of AP Public Employment (Requirement as to

Residence) rules 1959 (a) in the posts within the Telangana Region only

domiciles will be appointed (b) in the Secretariat and Heads of the

Departments, the second vacancy in every unit of three vacancies will be

filled by Telangana person. Rule-3 of the said rules were blatantly violated.

The rules were relaxed, interpreted and implemented to favour only Andhra

employees.

Discrimination was meted out to the Telangana employees in implementing

the principles of the integration of services which were contemplated by the

SRC and clear commitments given by the Govt. of India on the eve of the

reorganization of states. Pay committee constituted in 1958 chaired by Sri

Kasu Brahmananda Reddy, the then Finance Minister, virtually reduced the

pay scales of Telangana personnel in the name of equation and Andhra

employees got benefit due to pay revision.

Sl.

No.Name of the post

Pre- revised scale Rs.

Revised scale

Rs.

1. UDC in the Secretariat 135 – 200 (T)90 – 170 (A)

100 – 200

2 Asst. Superintendent 200 – 350 (T)

200 – 300 (A)

150 – 300

3. Superintendents in Directorates

170 – 320 (T)190 – 240 (A)

150 – 300

4. Jr. Superintendents in Directorates

170 – 320 (T)

140 – 190 (A)

150 – 250

5. UDC in directorates 150 – 170 (T)

80 – 125 (A)

90 -180

6. Typists in Directorates 54 – 130 (T) 50 – 120

45 – 90 (A)

7 Revenue Asst. & Tahasildars 250 – 450 (T)

200 – 300 (A)

200 – 350

8 Dy. Tahasildars 190 – 275 (T)

150 – 260 (A)

150 – 250

9 Asst. Surgeons & Tutors in medical dept.

250 – 550 (T)

200 – 400 (A)

250 – 500

10 Agricultural Demonstrators & farm managers

176 – 300 (T)

100 – 200 (A)

150 – 300

The above table reveals that in the revision of pay scales in 1958 & 1961

Andhra employees got monetary benefit and Telangana employees

downgraded in the name of uniformity. The Telangana Regional

Committee also disapproved this kind of discriminative attitude of

Government of Andhra Pradesh as follows in its 3rd supplementary report of

sub-committee on white paper on Telagana Services.

“The Committee has been observing that the practice of the Government

was to issue a Government Order or a U.O. Note that clearly violates the

principles laid down under the directions of Government of India or the

S.R.. Commission Report. These order are implemented with the pre-

mediated object of giving facility, for continuing X or Y (Andhra region) in a

particular post although he does not deserve, it under rules. All this is

purported to be done on a purely temporary footing although why even a

temporary measure should be allowed to flout the rules is not at all clear.

The Committee also regrets to note that the Government were not

prepared to retrace their steps even after being convinced of the just stand

of the Telangana services in some cases. On the contrary they kept

improvising several pretexts, as for instance, that it is a matters of

administrative inconvenience or that much time has elapsed since X or Y

has continued in the post and the “therefore it would not be proper, at the

distance of time to rake up healed wounds”. It is obvious that the orders

implemented and the arguments advanced are but two sides of the same

medal; they fit in perfectly with each other. This Committee unequivocally

disapproves of this attitude and pleads for retrospective remedy so as to

bring about a fuller and better integration of services.”

We submit that within 12 years of formation of A.P. State, the Telangana

NGO’s Union and State Teachers Union representing one lakh employees

having lost faith & confidence in the Govt. of AP had openly declared that

the justice would be done to them only in a separate Telangana State.

Loss of Employment Opportunities:

The people of Telangana were apprehensive about the exploitation of

employment opportunities in the combined State of A.P. and hence they

were against the merger SRC had honestly received the apprehension of

the people of Telangana in their report in para 378.

“Out of the principal causes of opposition to Vishaladhra also seems to be the

apprehension felt by the educationally backward people of Telangana that they

may be swamped and exploited by the more advanced people of coastal area. In

the Telangana District out side the city of Hyderabad Education is woefully

backward. The result is that a lower qualification than in Andhra is accepted for

public services. The real fear of the people of Telangana is that if they join

Andhra they will be unequally placed in relation to the people of Andhra and in

this partnership the major partner will derive all the advantages immediately,

while Telangana, itself may be converted into a Colony by the enterprising

Coastal Andhra”

We submit that the apprehensions expressed by the people of Telangana

have become a reality in the State of A.P. Mulki Rules were violated

blatantly and with the result of these violations it was estimated by the

Telangana NGO Unions that 22,000 Andhra Employees infiltrated into the

jobs in Telangana by1968.

Jai Telangana Agitation 1969:

In 1968-69 the Telangana agitation was launched by the students and

employees of this region, for safeguards assured in the gentlemen’s

agreement when the Governments headed by the Andhra Rulers did not

care the demand of implementation of Gentlemen Agreement. Due to

irresponsible attitude of the leaders, the movement turned into a movement

for separate Telangana State. Government of Andhra Pradesh deployed

police and Military / CRPF Battalions to suppress the movement Lathi

charges and firings were continued months together, across the Telangana

Region, especially in the city of Hyderabad. Near about 369 students and

innocent peoples were died in firings. Employees of this region went on

strike for 11 months during the movement.

In view of the seriousness of Telangana agitation on 11-4-1969 the then,

Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi made a statement in Lok Sabha

announcing Eight Point Programme for Telangana Development.

Education, Employment and Plan Implementation Committees besides

High-Power Development Committee, were proposed to set up. One of the

points which is relevant here is Point-IV- “ The possibility, of providing for

appropriate Constitutional safeguards in the matter of public employment in

favour of people belonging to the Telangana region will be examined by the

Government of India in consultation with a committee of Jurists”. As was

the case with all other formulas, this formula too was not implemented.

The residential qualification in the Mulki Rules will apply only for the

purposes of recruitment to non-gazetted posts and posts of Tahsildars and

Civil Assistant Surgeons in the Telangana region. It will also apply to such

posts as were non-gazetted on 01-11-1956 but have since been made

gazette. However, in the case of composite offices such as Secretariat, the

offices of Heads of Departments and common Institutions of the State

Government, these rules will apply for the purpose of filling the second

vacancy in every unit of three direct recruitment vacancies, in non-gazetted

posts.

Since the above proposals and arrangements were not in accordance with

the gentlemen agreement, the said proposals were not accepted by the

agitators.

Issue of G.O. No. 36 and Pronouncement of Historical Judgment of

Supreme Court on Mulki Rules:

The Government succumbing to the pressure of agitation issued G.O.36 to

repatriate all the non-local employees from Telangana. The Govt. order

was challenged in High Court by the Andhra Employees. The Full Bench of

Hon’ble High Court of AP upheld constitutional validity of GO.Ms.No. 36

and Mulki Rules on 9th July 1969. The petitioners appealed to Hon’ble

Supreme Court and the case was referred to constitutional bench

consisting of 5 judges. After prolonged arguments, Supreme Court

pronounced its judgment on 3-10-1972 in SLP (Civil Petition No) 993 of

1972 reported in AIR 1973 SC Page No 827 and upheld the constitutional

validity of the Mulki Rules as follows at paras 16 & 18:

“16. It was, however, urged that the impugned rules formed part of a

number of other rules which became void on the commencement of the

Constitution; all the Mulki rules constituted one integrated scheme

regulating appointments to services and posts under the old Hyderabad

State and if the other rules are void the impugned rules would also fall. But

this principle of interpretation cannot be applied to Art. 35 (b), for it

expressly saves laws like the impugned Mulki Rules. If we were to apply

the suggested principle of interpretation we would be rendering Art. 35 (b)

nugatory, for ordinarily rules like the impugned rules would from part of Civil

Service Regulations or laws dealing with appointments especially in the old

Indian States. We must give effect to the intention clearly expressed in Art.

35 (b). The Judges of the Full Bench also came to the same conclusion

and in agreement with them we hold that the impugned rules were

continued in force by Art. 35 (b) of the Constitution”.

“18. Accordingly we are of the view that the impugned rules continued in

force even after the constitution of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the

Re-organization of State Act, 1956”.

After this historical judgment of Supreme Court there were no obstacles in

implementing G.O.36 and Mulki Rules as agreed in the Gentlemen

Agreement. In terms of the G.O.Ms No. 36 all the non local employees

from Telangana who were appointed in violation of Mulki Rules have to be

repatriated. Unfortunately the Government of Andhra Pradesh headed by

Andhra Rulers never respected the Gentlemen Agreement and this

Historical Judgments of the Supreme Court.

Jai Andhra Movement against the Judgment of Supreme Court:

In 1972 the Leaders of Andhra Region had started the “Jai Andhra”

Movement in Andhra Region opposing the Supreme Court judgment and

demanded formation of separate Andhra State. They wanted to scrap all

the safeguards provided to the people of Telangana and demanded a state

without any restrictions if combined state was to be continued. Jai Andhra

movement gained momentum. Succumbing to the pressure of Jai Andhra

Movement, Govt. of India proposed a formula called ‘Six Point Formula’ in

1973.

The political leadership of Telangana, without analyzing the effects of six

point formula, blindly accepted it. The immediate result of it was abolition

of Mulki Rules and Telangana Regional Committee which effects the

dilution of Gentlemen Agreement. Percentage of local reservation in

employment was reduced from 100% to 60% in Gazette level Posts, 70%

in Zonal level non-gazette posts and 80% in the District level posts. A.P.

State was divided into six zones for the purpose of employment and

Telangana was divided into two zones instead of one zone.

Agreement on Six Point formula 1973:

The Six Point Formula (SPF) was evolved by the leaders of Andhra

Pradesh in consultation with the Central leaders and declared on 21-09-

1973 in order to remove the misgivings then prevailing about the future of

the State and to arrive at a settlement in the wake of Telangana Agitation of

1969 and Andhra Agitation of 1972. It is reproduced below:-

1) Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State and

planned development of the State Capital with specific resources

earmarked for these purposes and appropriate association of

representations of such backward areas in the State Legislature along with

other experts in the formulation and monitoring of development schemes

for such areas should form the essential part of the developmental strategy

of the State Constitution at the State Level of a Planning Board as well as

Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate

instrument for achieving this objective.

2) Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State enabling

adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of

admission to educational institutions and establishment of new Central

University at Hyderabad to augment the existing educational facilities

should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.

3) Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates

should be given preference to specified extent in the matter of direct

recruitment to (i) Non-Gazetted posts (other than in the Secretariat, Offices

of Heads of Department, other State level offices and institutions and the

Hyderabad City Police) (ii) Corresponding posts under the local bodies and

(iii) the posts of Tahsildars Junior Engineers and Civil assistant Surgeons in

order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be

organized to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified

gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.

4) A high power Administrative Tribunal should be constituted to deal

with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority,

promotion and other allied matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should

ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such a

Tribunal would justify limits on recourse to judiciary in such matters.

5) In order that implementation of measures based on the above

principles does not give rise to litigation and consequent uncertainly, the

Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary,

conferring on the President enabling powers in this behalf.

6) The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules

and Regional Committee unnecessary.

Presidential Order 1975:

In pursuance of the Six Point Formula necessary amendment was passed

in Parliament to the Constitution of India, as Article 371-D of the

Constitution, which reads as under:-

“371-D. Special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. –

(1) The President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra

Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole,

for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to

different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the

matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various

parts of the State”.

In exercise of the powers conferred on the President of India, through this

Amendment, the President passed two Orders pertaining to Andhra

Pradesh. One with regard to education and the other with regard to public

employment. As mentioned herein above, the one pertaining to public

employment was called “the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment

(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order,

1975”. It was incorporated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in

General Administration (SPF) department G.O.Ms.No. 674, dated 20-10-

1975 which reproduces the Presidential Order as embodied in G.S.R. No.

524 (E), dated 18-10-1975, of the Government of India”.

The major irreparable losses occurred to the people of Telangana by

accepting the six point formula and subsequent issue of Presidential Order

on the employment opportunities and allocation of seats in the educational

institutions are as follows;

(i) Local reservations were reduced from 100% to 60%, 70% and 80%

for various levels of post as explained above. The rest of the posts

were to be filled up on open merit basis and not reserved for non-

locals. But they were treated as reserved for non-locals.

(ii) In terms of Mulik Rules Telangana Region is one zone for the purpose

of recruitment in public employment. In terms of Presidential Order

the Telangana is divided into two zones viz; Zone V consisting of

Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal & Khammam districts and Zone VI

comprising of Nizamabad, Medak, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy,

Nalgonda, Mahboobnagar Districts. In some Departments of

Hyderabad district for some appointments a separate city cadre was

organized this provision was misinterpreted by Andhra officials and

Hyderabad was created as VII Zone or free zone for the purpose of

recruitment and transfers in all departments.

(iii) Period for local candidature was reduced to 4 years from 12 years.

Thousands of Andhras were benefited by this reduction and they

became locals in Telangana especially in Zone-VI who are residing in

and around Hyderabad city, being the capital of A.P. State, thereby

native people of Hyderabad city, Districts of Zone VI have lost

thousands of jobs since 1975.

(iv) Prior to the Presidential Order, every second vacancy in every unit of

three vacancies was reserved for Telangana in the Secretariat and

HODs. Presidential Order, 1975 removed such reservation to

Telangana under para 14 of the said order. Thereby Secretariat,

offices of the HODs, PSUs, Corporations, Boards, Govt. Aided

Institutions etc. have excluded from the local reservations and

become dens of Andhra Employees. The power centers, where policy

decisions and budgetary allocations are made, have insignificant

representation from Telangana, not more than 15%. Equitable

opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts

of the State in the matter of public employment as envisaged in

Art.371(D) of Constitution of India was denied to Telangana in the

disguise of provision of savings under para 14 of Presidential Order

1975. Domination of Andhra over Telangana is crystallized.

VIOLATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER 1975 and issue of

G.O.Ms.No. 610:

The Presidential Order, 1975 has been violated as was done in the case of

Mulki Rules. In 1985 Telangana NGOs Union represented the Govt.

indicating specific cases of violations of Presidential Order during 1975 to

1985 and prayed for their repatriation to their respective Zones/Districts.

The then Chief Minister Sri N.T.Rama Rao had appointed a three member

committee of IAS Officers comprising Sri Jayabharat Reddy, Umapathi and

Kamalanathan to look into the matter. After thorough enquiry it was

established by the committee that 58,962 non-local were infiltrated in to the

posts meant for Telangana in violation of P.O. 1975 and recommended for

their repatriation to their native Districts/Zones. Govt. had issued G.O.610

on 30.12.1985 wherein Para 5(i) says “The employees allotted after

18.10.1975 to Zones V & VI in violation of Zonalization of local cadres

under the six point formula will be repatriated to their respective zones by

31.12.1986 by creating supernumerary posts wherever necessary”

Para 11 of G.O.610 says “The Departments of Secretariat shall complete

the review of appointments/promotions made under the Presidential Order

as required under para 13 of the said order by 30.06.1986”

In spite of such orders, the G.O. was not implemented. Identification of

non-locals was not taken up. The G.O. was not made available to public

until the Telangana agitation was started in 2001 for pressing for the

implementation of G.O.610.

Appointment of Girglani Commission:

In 2001, the then Chief Minister Sri.N.Chandra Babu Naidu in G.O.Ms.No.

270 GAD dated 25-6-2001 appointed a One Man Commission Sri

G.M.Girglani, IAS (Retd) as Chairman to investigate the violations of

Presidential Order, 1975 and submit report with recommendations.

The One Man Commission had worked for 3 years and submitted a

detailed report in 3 valumes consisting 750 pages in 2004 to the

Government of Andhra Pradesh with recommendations enumerating how

the P.O. 1975 has been violated since its promulgation and till date.

The Girglani Commission in its report has categorically pointed out which is

as under at page No 29 in volume-I as detailed below.

Causes of Deviations of the Presidential Order:

A reading of the Report will itself indicate which deviation can be

attributed to which cause. Some of the causes discerned by this

Commission are the following:-

1. Dynamics of administration: The pace of these has been increasing

day by day. The implications of various administrative decisions that

impinge on the Presidential Order have gone either unnoticed or got

ignored.

2. The Presidential Order had gradually been receding into the limbo of

oblivion. Hence its implications in the administrative decisions even in the

matters of reorganizations and far-reaching personnel and structural

changes and in the movement of personnel, did not even cross the minds

of the proposers and decision-makers. While in every such decision the

financial implications were always examined and legal aspects kept in mind

the implications under the Presidential Order escaped attention and tended

to get ignored. Even where they did occur to the concerned authorities, as

in the case of work charged establishments, these were skirted and the

easy way out was adopted.

3. In some situations the imperatives/compulsions of circumstances left

no choice but to turn the Nelson’s eye to the provisions of the Presidential

Order.

4. In a few cases patronage, favoritism or the blue-eyed boy syndrome

stands out quite patently and rather deplorably.

5. The ignorance and often misconception about or misconstruance of

some of the provisions of the Presidential Order and of the instructions in

G.O.s like G.O.P.No. 728 and G.O.P.No. 729 of General Administration

(SPF) Department, both of 01-11-1975 quite often stand – out glaringly.

One finds free mention in official correspondence and discussions of such

things “VII Zone” (some thing that does not exist), “Free Zone” (referring to

the City of Hyderabad), “Non-Local Quota:, interchangeability of the

concept of nativity with local candidate etc., One finds even guiding stars

misguiding – for example the advice of the General Administration (SPF)

Department and orders of Finance Department in the case of work charged

establishment and its absorption, and Government Memos. On the issue of

compassionate appointments.

6. (a) Departments that have a very large cadre and which include

certain wings which are/were excluded from the Presidential Order like

Police and Irrigation and Command Area Development;

(b) “Umbrella” Departments which have an integrated cadre covering

new offspring Departments – have some genuine difficulty in cadre

management particularly in wings where they find stagnation due to original

defective staffing pattern or any other reason. Such Departments tend to

resort to amnesia now and then with regard to the Presidential Order as the

easy way out.

We submit that the OMC had established that P.O. 1975 was violated,

misinterpreted, relaxed, ignored according to the whims and fans of officers

in the following forms.

(i) Presidential Order recognized 51 HODs only to which local

reservations are not applicable. The number of HODs now increased

to 204. The Govt. never bothered to take approval of the President of

India while increasing the number of HODs.

(ii) Govt. have converted many zonal level offices in Telangana as state

level offices and taken out these offices from the per view of

Presidential Order thereby Zonal Level Posts have become state level

posts to which local reservations are not applicable.

(iii) Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and Quli Qutubshah Urban

Development Authority are local bodies but they have been treated as

state level bodies and taken out of the purview of P.O. 1975 depriving

employment to the locals of Hyderabad City.

(iv) Many District Level Posts have been elevated to Zonal Levels Posts,

Zonal Levels Posts have been elevated to State Level Posts, thus

reduced the percentage of local reservations from 80% to 60% and no

reservation to State Level Posts.

(v) Inter District and Inter Zonal transfers are not permitted as per the

provisions of P.O. 1975 but using the provision of ‘Public Interest’

many employees from Andhra have been transferred to Telangana

District / Zones. Deputations were allowed and later they were

absorbed in these posts.

(vi) As per para 14 of P.O. 1975, employment opportunities in major

development projects were open to all. Later with due amendment of

P.O., G.O.No.455, dt.03.10.1985 was issued taking posts upto D.E.E.

level under the perview of P.O. But the services of candidates who

were appointed from 1975 to 1985 in the major development projects

were regularized violating Govt. Orders issued in G.O.No.455, thereby

about 40,870 employment opportunities have been lost by Telangana.

(vii) P.O. listed out specified gazetted posts. Govt. unilaterally gazetted

many non-gezetted posts and zonal specified gazetted posts were

elevated to statewide gazetted posts without approval of the President

of India. It resulted in reduction of percentage of local reservation.

(viii) Govt. issued appointment orders to many Andhra Employees on

compassionate grounds and posted them in Telangana in violation of

P.O. 1975.

(ix) There is no concept of VII Zone or Free Zone in P.O. 1975, but city of

Hyderabad has been treated as VII Zone or Free Zone and made

recruitments thereby hundreds of non-locals from Andhra got jobs

depriving the locals of Zone VI.

(x) 20%, 30% and 40% posts were to filled up on the basis of merit.

There is no reservation to non-locals in the P.O. But the APPSC and

DSCs misinterpreted them and reserved for non-locals.

(xi) Backlog posts meant for locals were to be filled up by 100% locals,

but these posts were again bifurcated as local and non-local thereby

hundreds of local posts have gone to non-locals.

(xii) When there were no experts to certain category of posts, candidates

were brought from Andhra using provision of public interest. They

were to be repatriated whenever expert candidate from local District /

Zone was available. But this was not done.

It is submitted that these were the forms of violations of presidential order.

One Main Committee Chairman Sri G.M.Girglani categorically commented

that these violations are equal to constitutional violations. He has

recommended long term and short term rectification measures for the

implementation of G.O.610 and follow Presidential Order, 1975 in its true

spirits.

Short term measures:

Enter service particulars of all the employees in the service books i.e,

status - local / non local.

New recruitments, promotion should be taken up only after the

rectification of violations.

Training should be imparted to all the employees of State Govt. on

Presidential Order.

Long Term Measures:

A Permanent Assembly House Committee should be constituted to

monitor the implementation of P.O. 1975.

A Permanent Committee of Ministers should be constituted to monitor

the implementation of P.O. 1975.

An authority at Govt. level should be constituted to monitor and

implement P.O. 1975.

General Administration Dept., which looks after the service matters

should be strengthened.

The Govt. of A.P. accepted the OMC report on the floor of the House. But

the Govt. never bothered to implement the short term and long term

measures recommend by the OMC inspite of repeated representations

submitted by the Telangana Employees, Teachers and Workers Unions.

Contrarily the Govt. have issued G.Os.72, 399, 415 in the name of

implementation of G.O.610 which were against to the principles laid down

in P.O. 1975. Later they were withdrawn succumbing to the resentment of

Telangana Employees and the public as well.

Appointment of House Committee on G.O.Ms.No. 610 headed by Sri

Revuri Prakash Reddy, M.L.A:

The state Government has called for an all party meeting on 15-6-2001

regarding the implementation of Six Point Formula in zone V and VI

(Telangana Region) pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 610. On 29-12-2001 on the

floor of Andhra Pradesh Assembly several members have pointed that the

injustice is being done to the locals in the matter of appointments due to

non implementation of said G.O. After prolonged agitation, the then Chief

Minister has agreed to constitute House Committee headed by Revuri

Prakash Rao, M.L.A. as Chairman. This House Committee functioned

years together and several meetings were conducted and called upon the

heads of all the Departments including Chief Secretary of the Government

for speedy implementation of 610 G.O. Since the majority officers belong

to Andhra region many of them did not cooperate with the House

Committee. As a result, this committee failed in identifying the non-locals;

however this committee submitted its two interim reports to the

Government with the following recommendations.

In 1st Interim Report dated 17-03-2003:

The Committee was informed of the various aspects pertaining to the

recruitments with reference to the Presidential Order in the recruitments of

Sub-Inspectors, quoting graduation is the minimum required qualification,

i.e., the place of study, commencing with the four consecutive years ending

with the academic year in which he appeared from the relevant qualified

examination for treating as local candidates. Finally, the Principal

Secretary has submitted that necessary exercise would be taken-up as

soon as possible to implement the orders of the High Court and also to

rectify the mistakes done way back in the coming and future recruitments to

overcome the short fall.

1. The Committee observed that since 1975, eight recruitments were

made to the posts of S.I’s in Hyderabad City Police of the Home

Department, without following the Six Point Formula, considering

Hyderabad as a free zone. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, there are only six zones and no other zone like VII

Zone or Free Zone. The very treating of Hyderabad as a Free Zone is

contrary to the Spirit of the Presidential Order. The Hon’ble High Court in

its judgment has clearly mentioned that Hyderabad is not a Free Zone but it

is a part and parcel of the VI Zone. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal

directed the Home Department to prepare a combined seniority list in zone

VI, but it did not appear to have been followed.

2. The Committee further observed that due to the non-implementation

of the Six Point Formula, the presently working Civil S.I. and Constable

posts were filled by the non-locals in Hyderabad City Police. Out of 563

posts of Civil S.I posts, 273 posts are occupied by the non-locals and out of

97 posts of Reserve S.I’s 44 posts are occupied by the non-locals.

3. Even though the judgment was delivered eight months ago, no action

was initiated to rectify the lapse and not even they have come to a

conclusion, whether it was prospective, or retrospective.

4. The Committee unanimously recommended that the non-locals who

were appointed in the posts earmarked for the locals, against the Six Point

Formula, should be repatriated to their respective zones with immediate

effect.

5. The Committee further recommended that the directions given by the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal should be implemented in letter

and in spirit forthwith by the Government and that a combined seniority list

should be prepared for the rest of the employees by keeping aside those to

be repatriated to their respective zones.

2nd Interim report dated 14-11-2003:

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The Committee recommends that 2399 posts of Civil Police

Constables are now occupied by the non-locals should first be filled up by

the locals against the OC quota in Hyderabad City Police. And also

recommends that 616 posts of Armed Reserved Police Constables which

are now occupied by the non-locals should first be filled up by the locals

against the OC quota in Hyderabad City Police.

2. The Committee recommends that 546 posts of teachers which are

now occupied by non-locals should first be filled up by the locals against

the OC quota in Ranga Reddy District in the immediate future recruitments.

3. The Committee recommends that 262 posts of teachers which are

now occupied by non-locals in Hyderabad District, 23 posts in Medak

District, 8 posts in Adilabad District and 3 posts in Khammam District

should first be filled up by the local candidates of the respective districts

against the OC quota in the immediate future recruitments.

4. The Committee recommends that 87 posts of various categories (as

shown in the Annexure) which are now occupied by the non-locals in

Prohibition and Excise Department in Ranga Reddy District should first be

filled up by the local candidates against the OC quota in the immediate

future recruitments.

5. The Committee recommends that it is only after filing up of all the

posts mentioned above, the further recruitments in future should take place

as per the ratio prescribed under the rules.

We submit that despite of the above recommendations of the House

Committee no action has been taken by the Government for rectification of

violation of Presidential Order and Six Point Formula.

Constitution of further committees on implementation of G.O.Ms.No.

610 and Presidential Order:

During the year 2004 the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Sri Y.S.

Rajashekar Reddy, had constituted the following Committees for

rectification of violation of Presidential Order and G.O.Ms.No. 610 as

detailed below:

1. House Committee lead by Sri Uttam Kumar Reddy, M.L.A:

Andhra Pradesh Assembly has constituted the House Committee for

implementation of the 610 G.O. and Presidential Order Sri Uttam Kumar

Reddy as Chairman during the year 2004 to 2009. This Committee

functioned and conducted the several meetings with all Heads of the

Departments and Officers concerned but failed to obtain the information

pertaining to the non-locals employees of various Departments in

Telangana Region, due to non co-operation of Andhra Officers. Finally this

committee completed its tenure without any appropriate recommendations.

2. 1st of Cabinet Sub-Committee:

In terms of G.O.Ms.No. 219 dated 10-8-2004 the state Government has

constituted the Cabinet Sub-Committee comprising 7 cabinet Ministers to

examine the recommendations of One Man Commission on 610 G.O. Sri

M.Sathyanarayana Rao, the then Minister for Endowment acted as

Chairman. This Committee has also functioned but it is not known that this

committee has submitted any report to the Cabinet.

3. 2nd Cabinet Sub-Committee:

In terms of G.O.Ms.No. 778 dated 13-12-2006 another cabinet sub-

committee has been constituted called as Groups of Ministers, Sri

D.Srinivas, the then Minister of Rural Development, as Chairman to

oversee the implementation of G.O.Ms.No. 610 keeping in view of

recommendations of One Man Commission. This committee also

functioned and conducted several meetings with officers concerned, but it

is not known that this committee has submitted any report to the Cabinet.

4. Committee with the Officers:

In terms of G.O.Rt.No.1878 dated 12-4-2005, the committee with the

officers has been constituted to examine the reports / proposals collected

from all the departments and secretariat and Heads of the Departments

based on the findings of the One Man Commission duly following the basic

principles of the Presidential Order and submit the consolidated report to

the Government. This committee has diametrically turned around and

worked contrary to the basic spirit of the Presidential Order and caused for

the issuance of the G.O Ms.No. 72 dated 04-03-2006, G.O.Ms.No. 399

dated 5-6-2007 and G.O.Ms.No. 415 dated 12-6-2007 which are issued

against the basic principles and spirit of Presidential Order. Subsequently

succumbing to the resentment of the Telangana Employees and the public

as well, the State Government have withdrawn the above said G.O’s.

5. Implementation and Monitoring Authority :

In terms of G.O.Ms.No. 778 dated 13-12-2006 the State Government has

constituted an officers committee called as Implementation and Monitoring

Authority to oversee the implementation of G.O.Ms.No. 610 keeping in view

of the recommendations of the One Man Commission. This committee was

headed by the Chief Secretary to Government. This Committee has

conducted several meetings with employees, teachers and workers

associations of both the regions and also Heads of the Departments in the

State. Keeping in view of the discussions of the meetings several

instructions were issued to the concerned departments to identify the non-

local employees working in the Talangana Region and issue order for

repatriation to their respective native zones/district. Since 90% Heads of

the Departments and Higher Officers of the Government belong to the

Andhra Region, the said officers intentionally neglected to implement the

instructions and G.O’s issued by the Government for repatriation of non-

locals employees.

On Nov. 22, 2008 Govt. have issued a statement stating that out of 12

lakhs Govt. employees it had gone into the details of 4.5 lakhs employees

only. Govt. have no information of 67000 employees, 18,000 employees

only found to be non-locals who were appointed, transferred and deputed

in violation of Presidential Order 1975 and they would be sent back to their

respective Districts or Zones. Accordingly Govt. Departments have issued

a few repatriation G.Os but all were stayed by the A.P. Administrative

Tribunal / High Court, thereby all remained at their places. Since then

nothing had taken place. Government have not taken steps to ensure the

interim stays are vacated by filing the counters and vacate stay petitions.

Employees Censes 2006:

In terms of the report of Directorate of Economics and Statistics Particulars

of Sixth Censes of State Government and Public Sector Employees

Published on 11-2-2008 are as follows:

Total number of Employees in State Government and Public Sector

as on 31-03-2006 are 12,89,635.

Exclusively State Government Employees are 6,15,878.

Local Bodies Employees are 3,29,573.

State Public Sector Under Taking Employees are 2,53,550.

Universities Employees are 15,872.

Other Work Charged and aided Institutions Employees are 74,762.

The Employees Working in the State Capital i.e., in Hyderabad are

(Including Secretariat, HOD’s and other State level Offices) 1,10,724.

Employees in the Government Sector: Gazetted Officers are 57,899,

Non-Gazetted Officers are 5,49,877, Class IV Employees are

1,40,287.

As per the District wise censes report it is to state that the employees

working at State Capital are 1,10,724. In Telangana Region 4,98,359 and

in Andhra Region 6,80,552. In the State Capital i.e. in Hyderabad 90%

Employees hail from Andhra Region and 10% only from Telangana Region.

Out of 4,98,359 who were working in Telangana Region, near about 40%

non-local Employees (Andhra Region) i.e., 1,99,344 are working in violation

of Presidential Order. Whereas in the Andhra Region i.e. out of 6,80,552

not even 1% employees of Telangana area are working in that region. Out

of 57,899 Gazetted Officers in the State only 10 to 12% of Officers hail from

Telangana. In the Non-Gazetted Officers Category also the recruitment

agencies i.e., APPSC, DSC, Police Recruitment Board etc., never bothered

to follow the provisions of the Presidential Order for the last 40 years. As a

result, thousands of non-local employees were recruited in Telangana Area

in violation of local reservation. Whenever the violations were taken to the

notice, the State Government was not serious about rectification of such

violations of Presidential Order.

As per the above analysis the Telangana people have lost near about 2.5

lakhs employment opportunities during these 53 years of combined State.

The number of non-local employees who were working in Telangana in

violation of Mulki Rules in the initial stage and subsequently in violation of

Presidential Order estimated through the various Committees appointed by

the Government are as follows:

1956-1968 - 22,000 in violation of Mulki Rules

1975-1985 - 58,962 in violation of Presidential Order 1975

Its cumulative effect is estimated to a tune of 2.5 lakhs by the Telangana

Employees based on the findings of the One Man Commission upto 2005.

To conclude it is to be stated that Telangana is marginalized in the field of

public employment. Due to insignificant representation in the Secretariat &

HODs discrimination, injustice is meted out to Telangana in every sphere of

life.

Demand for implementation of Presidential Order, G.O.610 and fair share

in the Secretariat & HODs is to be understood as a democratic aspiration of

people of Telangana to have equitable share in the State’s administration

as envisaged in the Article 371 (D) of Constitution of India. This has been

rejected to Telangana by the successive Governments. Andhra Rulers are

not generous in this regard as they assured on the floor of Andhra

Assembly in 1956. Hence, the employees, teachers and workers in

Telangana are left with no option than to demand a separate state of

Telangana.

Conclusion:

The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, while announcing the merger of

Andhra and Telangana on 5th March, 1956 at Nizamabad, he made it clear

that “If the Telangana people suffer injustice at the hands of Andhras then

they will have a right to seek separation”.

Again on 1-11-1956 on the day of formation of Andhra Pradesh State he

categorically said in Hyderabad that “Andhra People are on trial and the

unity of the new State depends on how fairly they treat the people of

Telangana”.

Nehru is regarded as a statesman politician. He had his own opinions on

the formation of Vishalandra and he never hesitated to express his opinion

on Vishalandra. He said on the issue of Vishalandra that “We are not

interested in Vishalandhra or Vishala, this or that. I do not understand such

question in the present context, the demand has taint of imperialism –

imperialism is not the exact word and of expansive psychology behind

imperialism (selected works of Nehru, Vol. 4 P. 68.).

In spite of he being against to Vishalandhra, he had to bow down to the

pressures of Andhras and decided in favour of merger. He knew pretty well

that Vishalandhra would last no longer, and hence he categorically

announced that Telangana has a right to separate whenever they wish.

It is note worthy to mention that the SRC while recommending for formation

Telangana State it was of the opinion that Agreements like Sri Baug Pact

and Constitutional devices like British-Scottish devolutions would not work

for Telangana.

“We have carefully gone into the details of the arrangements which may be

made of these lines. It seems to us, however, that neither guarantees on

the lines of the Sri Baug Pact nor constitutional devices, such as “Scottish

devolution’ in the united kingdom, will prove workable or meet the

requirements of Telangana during the period of transition. Anything short

of supervision by the Central Government over the measures intended to

meet the special needs of Telangana will be found ineffective, and we are

not disposed of to suggest any such arrangement in regard to Telangana

(Para 384, SRC Report 1955).

All the agreements, constitutional safe guards, Supreme Court Judgments,

Formulae, Commissions, Committees, Govt. orders right from 1956 to till

date have failed to protect the interests of Telangana. Telangana did not

get its rightful share in the administrative machinery and distribution of

resources, mainly water, Power, Jobs and Revenues. Telangana virtually

turned into an internal colony to Andhra and the people of Telangana have

been marginalized in all spheres of life. In the passage of time for past 54

years, it has been our bitter experience any attempt to solve the problem

has proved a futile exercise in as much as the representation of the

Seemandras in Assembly (175 MLA’s) has been prevailing as our

representation in Assembly is minuscule (119 MLA’s), so is in the case of

beurocracy as well as in Judicial. Whenever people of Telangana

demanded for separate State they were offered Formulae, Committees,

Ministerial berths to the political leaders and suppressed the agitations.

The apprehensions of SRC as expressed then has now become a reality.

Now the people of Telangana want a separate state of Telangana and

nothing short of a separate State will satisfy them.

At this juncture, the people of Telangana just want liberation from the

colonial rule of Andhra. Until this is achieved, the aspirations of Telangana

will not die and movement will continue since the aspirations are related to

their land self respect and self rule. The experience of 53 years of

combined State of Andhra Pradesh has proved beyond doubt that justice

would not be done to the people of Telangana. The continuance of State of

Andhra Pradesh will lead to permanent social unrest in Telangana Region

in particular and in the State in General.

In view of the above historical background and the existing situations, we

earnestly request the Hon’ble Committee to recommend the formation of

Telangana State, with Hyderabad as its Capital, thus facilitate to fulfill the

long pending democratic aspiration of Telangana people.

---



(In Four Volumes)

Demand for

Telangana State

VOLUME – III

EMPLOYMENT

(State Govt. Services)



(In Four Volumes)

Demand for

Telangana State

VOLUME - IV

POWER

POWER SECTOR

Power is one of the key determinants of progress of an economy. Industrial

development, solely and Agricultural development, mainly, depend upon the

capacity and strength of the sector.

Telangana is richly endowed with abundant natural resources required for the

generation of power – coal and water. Coal needed for thermal power is

available only in the Telangana region and not anywhere else in therest of the

state. Water resource required for Hydal power is a plenty in Telangana.

Two mighty rivers of South India – Godavari and Krishna – traverse three

fourth of their length in Telangana. These two resources are being utilized to

their maximum capacity. But the power generated through them is not

available to meet even the minimum requirements of the region. The

situation is the consequence of a deliberately premeditated and meticulously

worked out strategy of the Andhra political leaders, bureacrats and

technocrats. The entire system of power management with regard to the

generation and transmission is under the iron grip of anti-Telangana and pro-

Andhra elements. Thereby, Telangana has become a classic example of

“Poverty amidst plenty” .

Details are furnished in the enclosed note which is divided into five parts.

POWER SECTOR

The report is divided into 5 parts.

First part deals with injustices to Telangana region in the development of

power sector. This chapter traces the history of power sector in both

Telangana and Andhra regions prior to the formation of the Andhra Pradesh.

It is clearly established that the city of Hyderabad was well developed even

from power sector point of view much before Andhra people get to know what

electricity is. Present claims of Andhra rulers that they are responsible for the

development of Hyderabad city is without any basis.

Injustices done to Telangana region in the development of power sector are

many. This is in the form of diversion of projects supposed to be built in

Telangana region, not taking up projects in Telangana region where high

potential exists, delays and neglect in execution of projects citing petty

reasons, making Telangana projects unviable by inflating the project costs

etc,. These acts of Andhra rulers are discussed in detail.

Second Part deals with injustices done to Telangana region in the matters of

employment. Power sector creates many opportunities for employment for the

unemployed youth in generation, transmission and distribution segments of

power sector. Thus setting up of generating stations, transmission and

distribution networks not only solves the problems of power availability and

shortages to the people but also the solves the problem of unemployment,

which is one of the main problems faced by the society. Each major

generating station requires thousands of employees and corresponding

transmission and distribution networks require even more number of

employees. Thus the policies of the government in creation of power

infrastructure play very important role in creation of employment to various

regions. A detailed account as to how the Andhra rulers have discriminated

Telangana region in making appointments to the key posts like Chairmen,

members of the erstwhile APSEB and also in the post reform era for the

various Director posts in the successor entities of APSEB viz, APGENCO,

APTRANSCO and four Distribution Companies. It also discusses in detail

how Telangana region lost thousands of job opportunities for its unemployed

youth due to discrimination and complete neglect of this region. Also

Presidential order of 1975, which gives reservations to local youth, is not

implemented for 34 years up to 2009. This has an adverse impact on job

opportunities for Telangana youth.

Third part shows how Andhra Rulers have not only systematically exploited,

discriminated and neglected Telangana power sector and on the other hand

started spreading wrong information regarding power sector to give an

impression that Telanagana region is the major beneficiary due to the

formation of combined state of Andhra Pradesh. Protagonists of

“Samaikyandhra” mainly focus on (i) Tariff Subsidies and (ii) Percapita

consumption in Telangana region in support of their argument. But all these

arguments are baseless. A detailed analysis is given in this part proving that

all these claims of Andhra rulers are wrong.

Fourth Part explains how “Unified Robbery” is going on in the guise of

“Samaikyandhra” (Unified Andhra) by certain vested interests from Andhra

region. It also discusses how the “Samaikyandhra” slogan helps these vested

interests in exploiting both the regions. In fact, if Telangana State is formed,

with the given spread of Natural Resources, Telangana Region can be

developed with the coal, water and other natural resources available and the

Andhra Region can be developed with the natural gas reserves available in

KG Basin. But the selfish interests of certain Andhra capitalists can be fulfilled

only if the state is combined.

Fifth Part tries to present a picture as to how the power sector would have

looked like in Telangana region, if it remained a separate without merging with

Andhra State in 1956. The state would have been power surplus and revenue

surplus even after extending 24 hours power supply to rural areas and

increasing the supply hours to Agriculture from 7 to 9 hours.

*****

Part-I

Injustice to Telangana Region in the Development of Power Sector

Electricity has become an essential service in the modern living. It has

become an important indicator of human development. Electricity is also an

important infrastructure item playing a pivotal role in economic development.

The relation between access to electricity and improvement of Human

Development Index is well known. A small quantity of electricity supply can

make a big difference in the quality of life and economic status of the poor. In

electricity sector also Telangana region is being systematically discriminated.

This is reflected in the continued backwardness of the region. In this

submission an attempt is made to explain the Telangana region is exploited,

discriminated and neglected over the past five decades.

1.0. History of Power Sector in Telangana and Andhra Regions Prior to

formation Andhra Pradesh:

Brief discussion on status of power sector in Telangana and Andhra Regions

prior to formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956 is necessary to assess the truth

in tall claims of Andhra rulers that the development in the city of Hyderabad

and Telangana region is due to their hard work, sacrifice and benevolence.

1.0.1. Status of Power Sector in Telangana Region:

Prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956, Telangana region was part

of Hyderabad state and Andhra was part of Madras state. Hyderabad State

Electricity Department which served Telangana region was established in the

year 1910. The first place to get electricity in Hyderabad was palace of Nizam

in 1909. A 10KW diesel set was installed in Hyderabad for supplying

electricity to the king’s palaces. The Hussain sagar bund was electrified in

October, 1913. Street electrification work in and around Hyderabad was

started in the same month. By December 1915, electricity was provided on

Residency roads. At about the same time, a programme of expansion was

taken up to generate electric power at Aurangabad, Nanded (now in

Maharashtra), Raichur, Gulbarga (Now in Karnataka), Nizamabad and

Warangal. By the end of First World War, there were altogether 12 main and

feeder lines and 50 substations. The total number of consumers was 3238.

Power was supplied to 59 water pumps, 159 flour, rice, dal and oil mills, two

X-ray apparatus, 14 mortar mills, two ice factories, 67 motors for other works

and 7 cinema halls. The Hyderabad Eectricity Act came into being in 1938-39.

By this time Hyderabad could claim to be one of the best illuminated cities of

India. The first out door substation was constructed at Toli Chowki. The power

sector in the state grew steadily thereafter. The first hydro-electric project in

Hyderabad state was built at a cost of Rs 225 Lakhs was inaugurated on

January 27, 1955 at Nizamsagar about 110 miles from the state capital. This

project constituted the first phase of the power development of the Manjira

river, a tributary of the Gadavari. It provided 15000 KW of electricity to

supplement power supply to the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Till then, the twin cities were getting power from Hussain sagar Thermal

station. The Azamabad Thermal Power Station which was also known as

Ramagundam Thermal Station and Godavari Valley Thermal Power Station

which was built during 1953-56 first envisaged a steam power station of

37500 KW capacity at Ramagundam in Karimnagar district. The total cost of

the project was estimated at Rs 406 Lakhs.

During this time, the consumers in Telangana region were supplied power

mainly from diesel power stations. There were about 95 diesel power stations

in Telangana region. These were located at Ibrahimpatnam, Gajwel,

Sangareddy, Jogipet, Sankarpalli, Vikarabad, Sadasivapet, Zaheerabad,

Aligoal, Narayanpet, Gadval, Deverakonda, Maktal, Kodangal, Tandur,

Shadnagar, Parigi, Nizamabad, Armoor, Banswada, Bodhan, Kamareddy,

Jagityal, Metpalli, Siricilla, Parkal, Mulug, Narsampet, Jangaon, Nalgonda,

Khammam, Suryapet, Miryalaguda, Mahaboobabad, Medchel, Adilabad,

Nirmal, Utnoor etc,.

1.0.2. Status of Power Sector in Andhra Region:

Madras State Electricity Department which supplied electricity to Andhra

region was established in the year 1927, i.e. 17 years after the establishment

of Hyderabad State Electricity Department. Andhra State Electricity

Department was formed on October 1, 1953, the day on which Andhra state

was born with Kurnool as its capital. Andhra grid consisted of three thermal

stations, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada and Nellore with an aggregate capacity

of about 24000 KW and 13 diesel stations at Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam,

Kakinada, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Madanapalle, Kadapa, Proddatur,

Tadipatri, Anantapur, Nandyal and Kurnool with an aggregate capacity of

about 11000 KW. Bulk supply of Hydro power was received from two

neighboring states, about 2000 KW from Mysore Jog power at Bellary, about

3400 KW of Madras Mettur power in the Chittoor district at Kuppam, Chittoor,

Nagari and four other points and 700 KW from Mysore Sivasamudram power

at Hindpur. The per capita consumption of Andhra State was about 5 units

and was much less than the national average of 14 units.

From the above it is clear that city of Hyderabad was well developed even

from power sector point of view much before Andhra people get to know what

electricity is. Present claims of Andhra rulers that they are responsible for the

development of Hyderabad city is without any basis.

1.1. In justice to Telangana Region in the Development of Power

Sector:

Injustices done to Telangana region in the development of power sector are

many. This is in the form of diversion of projects supposed to be built in

Telangana region, not taking up projects for in Telangana region where high

potential exists, delay in execution of projects citing petty reasons, making

Telangana projects unviable by inflating the project costs etc,. These acts of

Andhra rulers are discussed below:

1.1.1. Diversion of projects to Andhra region:

Telangana region is endowed with abundant resources of coal and water

which are essential for setting up of generating stations. However rulers

belonging to Andhra region with their bias towards Andhra region have

preferred to construct the plants in Andhra region ignoring the interests of

Telangana region. Technically, construction of pit head plants i.e. setting up

plants where fuel is available is ideal for many reasons. Firstly, it would

reduce the fuel transportation costs and thus reduce overall cost of generation

which in turn reduces the burden on consumers. Secondly, extraction of coal

through mining requires dislocation of large number of people from their

habitat, causing lot of hardship to those people. However construction of plant

at the same location gives some relief to them as it creates employment and

development opportunities for the local people.

1.1.1.1 Shifting of Manuguru (Bhadrachalam) Power Project from

Manuguru to Vijayawada:

Andhra rulers have shifted the plants supposed to be built in Telangana

region to Andhra region. With the 1969 Telangana movement, Andhra rulers

have realized that one day they should be prepared for separation of State

and decided to hasten the exploitation process. This attitude resulted in

shifting of plant supposed to be built at Manuguru, Khammam district to

Vijayawada during 1973. In fact even the administrative report of 1978-79 of

erstwhile APSEB at para 1.1.3 clearly mentions that the proposal of

construction of 1000 MW pithead thermal power station at Manugur coal

mines and the preliminary work had already been taken up. It also mentions

that certain civil works have already been commenced and expenditure

incurred (Annexure-1). However there was no mention of this project in the

subsequent Administrative reports of APSEB. Thus Telangana region has lost

1760 MW of installed capacity and also associated employment opportunities

and development of the region. Vijayawada Thermal Power Station (VTPS) is

now renamed as Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station (NTTPS) after the

demise of Sri Narla Tata Rao who was instrumental in building VTPS at the

expense of Telangana region.

1.1.1.2. Story of Rayalaseema Thermal Power Plant (RTPP):

Similarly RTPP is constructed in Rayalaseema region where neither coal nor

water is available for running the plant. RTPP uses coal mainly from Singareni

colleries. In spite of severe shortage of availability of water and huge

transportation costs of coal, Andhra rulers have decided to expand the RTPP

by constructing additional units through stage-III and stage-IV. It doesn’t

require much expertise to state that this project should have been constructed

in Telangana region as this plant uses coal from this region and also

construction of pit head plant would have reduced overall generation costs for

the power utilities. It would have also helped Telangana region to overcome

the problems of low voltages which is a common feature in the entire region.

Now RTPP is facing severe shortage of water. This has led to Andhra leaders

to plan for diversion of Krishna waters from Pothireddypadu head regulator

from the rightful share of Telangana people. Loss of generation capacity to

Telangana region because of this is 840MW along with loss of thousands of

jobs to Telangana youth.

1.1.1.3. Handing over of Super Thermal Power Plant in Ramagundam,

Karimnagar to NTPC:

Erstwhile APSEB planned to construct a super thermal power plant in

Ramagundam, Karimnagar district. However, Narla Tata Rao chairman of

APSEB was instrumental in handing over of this plant to NTPC. He

recommended for taking over of Ramagundam Thermal Station (RTS) and

Manuguru Thermal Power Station (MTPS) to be taken over by NTPC. NTPC

accepted the proposal for taking over of RTS, Ramagundam, but declined to

take over MTPS, Khammam. This led to very dropping of proposal of

constructing a plant at Manuguru as their first choice was always a power

plant at Vijayawada.

Sri Narla Tata Rao believed that electricity should be in Central list and centre

should construct all large generating pithead stations and distribute power to

needy States. While no body disputes with the noble idea of Sri Narla Tata

Rao that equitable distribution of resources is essential for all round

development of the country, the question that remains to be answered is why

he had adopted double standards when it came to constructing large power

projects in Andhra region in State sector, that too by shifting them from

backward region of Telangana? Handing over of construction of power

project to NTPC had resulted in huge loss of generation capacity and also

loss of thousands of jobs to Telangana youth.

1.1.2. Loss of Generation Capacity due to not taking up of projects in

Telangana region:

Erstwhile APSEB had conducted detailed site investigations and identified

several locations in Telangana region suitable for setting up power plants.

Many of these projects were identified as potential locations as far back as

1966-67. Following are the details of some of these projects:

Table 1.1:

List Of Projects Identified But Not Taken Up In Telangana Region

S. No. Name of the Project Location District CapacityRef. (APSEB Adm. Report)

1Kuntala Hydro Electric Scheme

Across river Kadam Adilabad 24 MW 1966-67*

2Pranahita Hydro Electric Scheme

Across river Pranahita, a tributary

of GodavariAdilabad 280 MW 1966-67

3Inchampally Hydro Electric Scheme

Across Godavari Karimnagar 600 MW 1966-67

4Singareddy Hydro Electric Scheme: Dummagudem

Across Godavari Warangal 192 MW 1966-67

5Dindi Hydro Electric Scheme

On North East canal of the project

Nalgonda 21 MW 1966-67

7Sankarpalli Gas Power Station

Sankarpalli Ranga Reddy 1400 MW 2000-01

8Karimnagar Gas Power Station

Nedunuru Karimnagar 2100 MW 2004-05

Total 4617 MW

‘*’ Annexure-2

Successive governments have neglected construction of these projects and

preferred to concentrate on Andhra region. The reasons for not taking up

these projects were never stated anywhere.

It is interesting to note that several projects which were under investigation

stage during 1970s are still under investigation stage even today.

1.1.2.1. Shankarapally Gas Power Project:

APGENCO planned to construct a gas based power project with an installed

capacity of 1400 MW at shankarapally, Rangareddy district in the year 2000-

01 mainly to meet the demand of twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Land acquisition was completed for this project, but suddenly without showing

any reason Government shelved this project. Governments excuse is that it

dropped this project as a new gas project is proposed at Karimnagar. But

many allege that this was done due to the pressure from Andhra lobby who

were planning to construct new gas power projects as merchant plants. And

construction of any project by APGENCO required gas allocation from GOI

and this would reduce their chances in getting firm allocation of gas.

1.1.2.2. Combined Cycle Gas Based Project Near Karimnagar

(3X700MW):

APGENCO proposed to construct a 2100 MW (3x700MW) combined cycle

gas based power project at Nedunoor (V),Timmapur(M) Karimnagar District,

140KM from Hyderabad, on the Karimnagar-Hyderabad highway with an

estimated cost of Rs 5520 cr. This works out to Rs 2.63 cr per MW and could

be treated as the cheapest power projects taken up by APGENCO for more

than a decade. This project has been taken up through Special Purpose

Vehicle (SPV) with a name “Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company

Limited”. Detailed Project Report has been finalised. Land required for the

project is around 432 acres and the land acquisition is also completed. Water

requirement is 84405m3/day and the water source identified is Lower Manair

Dam. Irrigation Department has allocated 1.3 TMC of water from Lower

Manair Dam. Public hearing at the site was conducted on 18.01.2007.

Environmental clearance was granted by Ministry of Environment and Forests

on 7.6.2007.

This project uses Natural gas as primary fuel. Project requires 8MCMD of

natural gas. The gas required for the project was supposed to be procured

from the KG basin through a dedicated spur pipe line from the main pipe line

near Shamirpet, which is about 110Km from the project site. The first unit was

supposed to be completed within 27 months and the balance two units at 3

months intervals.

The commissioning of this project would help the Telangana region a great

deal as it creates huge employment opportunities and solves the power crisis

and low voltage problems faced by this region.

Although all clearances are available this project could not be taken up due to

lack of firm allocation of natural gas for this project. APPDCL invited tenders

for this project, but due to non availability of firm allocation of gas, the tenders

have been postponed. Though huge reserves of natural gas are available in

KG basin shear neglect of Andhra rulers has led to this situation. Andhra

capitalists, led by Sri Lagadapati Rajagopal, lobbied for allocation of natural

gas for their projects and obtained allocation of natural gas for their own

selfish needs. A total of 7000 MW capacity power projects, owned entirely by

Andhra capitalists, are under pipeline, all of which use natural gas from KG

basin, but not a single gas project is taken up by APGENCO. This is done

only to favour Andhra capitalists. These Andhra capitalists feel that if natural

gas is allocated to Karimnagar project, their projects may not get natural gas

allocation.

All this and neglect of rulers led to a situation where APGENCO is forced to

take up the project with expensive imported R-LNG (Regasified-Liquified

Natural Gas) as fuel. With R-LNG as fuel generation cost is very high and it

would be impossible to find financier for this project. If at all this project

materializes, the entire burden has to be transferred on to the consumers.

In its eagerness to show that they are serious about the project, Government

of AP laid foundation stone for this project on 14th February, 2010 for 700 MW

unit. But government has not disclosed the details of financing agency, fuel

supplier, cost of generation and whether the infrastructure is created for entire

2100 MW or not. Government says once it starts the project it may likely to

get gas allocation from MOP & NG, GOI. But if such is the case which

supplier of LNG would come forward to supply fuel knowing fully well that the

fuel supply agreement will any way be cancelled.

It is clear to many that this project would not materialize and the foundation

stone already laid will remain so as a symbol of neglect of Andhra rulers and

greed of ‘Samaikyandhra’ capitalists.

It is also to be mentioned that East-West gas pipe line carrying gas from KG

Basin to the western India passes through Telengana. But this Telengana

project will not get any gas from this source!

1.1.2.3. Sattupalli Thermal Power Station (1x600 MW):

Sattupally is located in Khammam District (Telangana Region). Open cast

coal mine has started in Sattupally a couple of years ago affecting the

people’s lives in this region. APGENCO proposed to construct a 600 MW

power project at this location. Land and Water source have been identified.

Ministry of Power has recommended to the Ministry of Coal to allocate 3.25

million MT coal linkage from SCCL. But Coal Linkage was not granted by

Ministry of Coal. Ministry of Coal is asking the proof of payment of advance to

the EPC/Main Plant contractor and clearances for land & water for allocation

of coal. But APGENCO says it will take up the project only after coal linkage.

The hide and seek game goes on forever. It is irony that the project at

Sattupally could not takeoff due to lack of linkage for coal, while people in

Sattupally are surrounded and dislodged by open cast coal mines.

1.1.2.4. Kakatiya Thermal Power Project (KTPP)- Stage-II (1x600 MW)

APGENCO has taken up construction of 600 MW Kakatiya Thermal Power

Project, Stage-II at Chelpuru Village, Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal Dist, Andhra

Pradesh. Water source for the plant is river Godavari near Kaleswaram about

58 Km from Project site. GoI allotted captive coal block at Tadicherla,

Karimnagar district as source of coal for this project. Final MoEF clearance for

the project obtained on 5.2.2009. APPCB has issued consent for

establishment of the power plant on 30.06.2009. REC has sanctioned a loan

for Rs 2170 Crores.

Genco called for global tenders to fix up the mine operator cum developer.

Singareni Corporation (SCCL) also participated in the bid. However Genco

imposed new conditions during the price bid stage which were not acceptable

to SCCL and hence SCCL decided not to participate in the price bids. This

paved way for certain Andhra contractors to grab the contract. Now people of

Telangana allege that Andhra rulers have systematically included certain

conditions at price bid stage to boot out SCCL from the fray only to help

Andhra Contractors.

1.1.2.5. BPL- Another cyanide pill for Telangana people:

We have seen how projects supposed to have been built in Telangana region

have been shifted to Andhra region and how many identified potential projects

in Telangana region have not been taken up. Here is a story how a highly

potential location in Telangana region for power generation is being doled out

to Private parties ignoring the interests of people of this region.

During mid 1990’s Government of AP invited bids for setting up generation

stations by the private parties at pre-identified locations. The power generated

from these projects would be sold to APSEB and necessary Power Purchase

Agreement (PPA) would be entered between the selected bidder and APSEB.

BPL was selected as the successful bidder for setting up of 520 MW

(2x260MW) power project at Ramagundam, Karimnagar district in Telangana

region. With very few bidders participating, the quoted rate per MW was very

high. However BPL could not achieve the financial closure for the project

within the stipulated time. The PPA was reviewed by the Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) and set a revised date for

achieving financial closure. When BPL failed to achieve financial closure

within the stipulated period, APTRANSCO cancelled the PPA in 2004 as per

the agreement conditions. However, BPL approached High Court and got stay

orders on the APTRANSCO’s termination orders and for the continuation of

coal supply agreement.

There was no activity for many years but recently efforts to revive the project

have begun. BPL made a proposal to the Government of AP stating that it

would confine the levelised tariff at Rs 1.79 per unit and consequently reduce

the capital cost from Rs 2650 cr to Rs 2475 crore. Government agreed BPL’s

proposal and directed APTRANSCO to revive the PPA with BPL.

Subsequently Energy Department issued G.O.Ms. No. 51 dt: 09-10-2009

(Annexure- 3) increasing the capacity of the project from 520 MW to 600 MW.

However the above G.O. conveniently ignores the proposal made by M/s BPL

about its intent to limit the levelised tariff to Rs 1.79/unit. There are allegations

that the Government has intentionally ignored the limits on levelised tariff only

to favour the developer. Without such a limitation on levelised tariff there is

every possibility that the price of power could be very high through several

manipulations. It is learnt that Government is pushing very hard to get the

consent of PPA from APERC for the revised conditions.

It is important to note that proposed project by M/s BPL is a pit head plant.

There is no need to revive this project under the BPL Company and

Government should take all steps to handover this project to APGENCO.

Handing over of this project to APGENCO has several advantages. Cost of

generation by APGENCO will be very low and thereby burden on consumers

will be less. Also APGENCO being Government Company, it would create

employment opportunities to thousands of unemployed youth of Telangana

region. It is a clear case of willful neglect of Telangana region by Andhra

rulers.

In fact at the time of cancellation of the PPA with BPL in the year 2000 the

GoAP declared that this project would be handed over to APGENCO. And

after a six year wait it is again going to BPL against the interest of the people

of Telangana.

1.1.3. Neglect of Telangana Power Sector:

1.1.3.1. Delay in Construction of Sagar Tail Pond Dam:

Nagarjunasagar Dam was constructed primarily for the purpose of irrigation.

Water is released to Telangana region through its left canal and right canal

releases water to Andhra region. Keeping this view Central Electricity

Authority (CEA), Government of India while permitting the construction of

Nagarjunasagar Hydro Electric Scheme laid two conditions. Firstly, turbines

used for power generation shall be of reversible type and secondly, there shall

be a tail pond dam constructed down stream of Sagar main dam. The reason

being when water is released for power generation during peak hours it is

stored in the Sagar tail pond dam and through reversible turbines it is pumped

back into the main dam during non-peak hours, so that water meant for

irrigation is not lost in the process.

Nagarjunasagar Tail pond dam got its environmental clearance in 1983. But

the Government of AP and APSEB influenced by Andhra political leaders

have not completed the tail pond dam till date. The reason behind this is a

sole motive of letting out water to Krishna delta in the name of power

generation from Nagarjunasagar reservoir. This is for irrigating the second

and third crops in Krishna delta, whereas the farmers under Nagarjunasagar

are suffering for water needed even for their first crop. If the tail pond dam is

constructed they can not take water to the Krishna delta in the name of power

generation. So there was abnormal delay in the construction of Tail pond dam

and this water could never be restored to Nagarjunasagar dam.

It is strange that Government of AP started many irrigation projects without

any statutory clearances but chose to remain silent when it came to Tail pond

dam with all the clearances in place for decades. Only sustained pressure

from Telangana movement the construction of this dam has shown some

progress.

1.1.3.2. Kinnerasani waters to dhavaleshwaram:

Kinnersani Project is constructed for providing water supply to KTPS. The

project was constructed by Irrigation Department during 1961-68 to 1970-71

as a deposit contributory work for erstwhile APSEB. The project was

maintained by Irrigation Department upto 31.3.1998. The APGENCO

(erstwhile APSEB) has taken over the project on 01.04.1998 and O&M is

being looked after by APGENCO.

At present the installed capacity of KTPS is 1180MW. It is contemplated to

add another 500 MW bringing the total installed capacity to 1680 MW. In the

event of drought, Hydel Stations cannot be relied upon and the APGENCO

has to depend upon thermal Generation as in case of current year. Since the

Kinnerasani Project is only source of KTPS, if there are successive lean

years, the entire power station has to be shut down. It is in the light of these

considerations that the Kinnerasani Project Dam though initially contemplated

as multipurpose project, was later taken up purely as power project.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh had sanctioned in Principle vide

G.O.M.S., No.317 (Irr.IV), I&CAD Dept., dated 25-09-1987 a scheme to

provide irrigation facility to 10,000 acres in Telangana region by using water

from KSP. However in the light of reasons explained in the foregoing paras,

the Government reviewed the decision. On 10-05-1995 in a meeting held in

the chambers of Chief Minister, it was considered that Power Generation at

KTPS is an important matter and the VI-Stage also must be formulated at the

earliest. Consequently, the availability of water requirement of power

generation alone, there will be no balance water left for sparing water for

providing irrigation facility to 10,000 Acres. Finally it was decided that it was

not advisable to have assured ayacut under the Kinnerasani reservoir which

will come in the way of protecting interest of Power Generation.

While this was the situation Andhra rulers from time to time issued orders for

release of waters from KSP to Dhavaleshwaram to serve the agricultural

needs of Andhra people. One such instance was that on 29-01-2001 the

Principal Secretary (I&CAD) sent a note to the Principal Secretary (Energy)

requesting for release of 1 TMC of water from KSP from 01-02-2001 to 22-02-

2001 apart from stepping up water releases from 4,500 Cusecs to 5,000

Cusecs from Sileru basin for the crops of Godavari Delta. This practice

continued year after year and even in the year 2008 entire waters of KSP was

released to Dhavaleswaram to satisfy the greed of Andhra politicians risking

the entire generation from KTPS. The result is that the water now available in

KSP is sufficient to run KTPS only upto May, 2010. Alarmed by the situation,

APGENCO and Government of AP are now spending huge amounts to divert

waters from Godavari to KSP.

This story clearly brings out how interests of telangana farmers and entire

region have been sacrificed to satisfy a few souls in Andhra region.

1.1.3.3. Telangana Power Sector Lands to Andhra Capitalists:

Hundreds of acres of lands belonging to Telangana power sector were

handed over to capitalists belonging to Andhra region. For example, Hussain

sagar power plant constructed prior to formation of Andhra Pradesh state,

served this region for many decades. After the life of this plant was over, the

power plant was dismantled and hundreds of acres of vacant land was taken

over by the Government. Subsequently these lands were given to Andhra

capitalists at throw away prices. While Genco, Transco and DISCOMS spend

huge amounts towards rentals for buildings to accommodate their own staff

and for construction of buildings at far away places, Andhra capitalists enjoy

these lands and make lot of money and no doubt they cherish the idea of

‘Samaikyandhra’.

1.1.3.4. Neglect of Telangana Region in various electrification schemes

taken up by Central Government:

In the implementation of various electrical substations for lift irrigation

schemes taken up by the Government of AP and various projects and

schemes supported by the State and Central governments, neglect of

Telangana region is very palpable. These are discussed below.

1.1.3.4.1. Abnormal delays in construction of Substations for Telangana

Lift Irrigation Projects:

Government of AP has taken up several Irrigation projects in the state. As part

of that some Lift Irrigation Schemes are proposed to being built in Telangana

region also. Electric Sub-stations are required for supply of power to these

LISs.

It is interesting to note that while Substations for LISs of Andhra region are

being executed by APTRANSCO itself, most of the substations for LISs of

Telangana region are executed by Irrigation department. It is not clear why

irrigation department was entrusted with the job of construction of sub-stations

for Telangana LISs which doesn’t possess expertise in construction of sub-

stations.

Obviously this has resulted in very poor progress of works of substations of

Telangana LISs and on the other hand substations in Andhra region whose

works have commenced at a much later date are nearing completion. Even

those sub-stations taken up by APTRANSCO in Telangana region are

progressing at a very slow pace.

The Details of sub-station works for Lift Irrigation Schemes in Telangana and

Andhra regions and their present status is given in the following paragraphs.

1.1.3.4.1.1. Lift Irrigation Schemes in Mahabubnagar (Telangana Region):

There are five lift irrigation schemes under execution in Mahabubnagar

district. Following are the details of the EHV substations and transmission

lines.

Table 1.2: Details of EHV Substations and Transmission lines in

Mahaboobnagar District

Sl.

No.

Name of the

Scheme

Name of the

Substations

Total

Amount to

be paid to

Transco

(Rs in Cr)

Amount

released

so far to

Transco

(Rs. in Cr)

Balance to

be paid to

Transco (Rs

in Cr)

1 Rajeev (Bhima)

Lift-I Irrigation

Scheme

Panchadevpadu,

Khanapur

8.04 8.04Nil

2 Bhima Lift-II

Irrigation Scheme

Thirumalayapalli,

Kothakota

8.52Nil

8.52

3 Mahatma Gandhi

(Kalwakurthy) Lift

Irrigation Scheme

Regumanugadda,

Jonnalaboguda,

Gudipallygattu

103.89Nil

103.89

4 Nettampadu Lift

Irrigation Scheme

Gudamdoddi,

Marlavidu

30.84Nil

30.84

5 Koilsagar Lift Nagireddypalli, 8.43 8.43 Nil

Irrigation Scheme Marikal

Total 159.72 16.47 143.25

The above mentioned substations are under execution for more than five

years and not even one substation is commissioned till today i.e., 3-3-2010.

Government is not bothered to complete and commission these substations

and more over against the total amount of Rs. 159.72 Cr, Government has so

released only Rs. 16.47 Cr over a period of five long years. In addition to the

scarcity of funds, there are certain technical bottle necks such as terminal

arrangements in three (Sl. Nos. 1, 3 and 4) of the above schemes were totally

neglected by Transco and Government. Unless the bottle necks are cleared

three (Sl. Nos. 1, 3 and 4) of the above said schemes cannot be

commissioned.

1.1.3.4.1.2. Lift Irrigation Schemes in Karimnagar (Telangana Region):

There are six EHV substations in Karimnagar which are contemplated under

Sripada Sagar Lift Irrigation Scheme (Popularly known as Yellampalli Lift

Irrigation Scheme). These substations are at Yellampalli, Gangadhara,

Vemnur, Medaram, Kodimial and Narsingapur. The phrase ‘Yellampalli Lift

Irrigation Project’ is being heard since more than three years. But ironically

the works only at Yellampalli substation are under progress and works at

Gangadhara, Vemnur and Medaram, are not at all commenced so far. And

God only knows when the tenders for Kodimial and Narsingapur substations

will be called. Against a total cost of Rs. 189.36 Cr Government was kind

enough to release Rs. 106.95 Cr over a period of three years and no one

knows when the balance Rs. 82.41 Cr will be released.

1.1.3.4.1.3. Lift Irrigation Schemes in Kurnool and Anantapur (Andhra

Region):

There are eight EHV substations in Kurnool and two EHV substations in

Anantapur under Hundri Neeva Sujala Sravanthi Lift Irrigation Scheme. These

substations are at Dhone, Malyal, Brahmanakotkur, Krishnagiri,

Lakkasagaram, Kambalapadu, Settipalli and Nansurala in Kurnool and

Regulapadu and Ankampalli in Anatapur. Works at all the places are

commenced and in most of the places works are nearing completion. The

scheme was just initiated in 2007 and in a span of three years all the ten

substations will be commissioned. Thanks, to the Government, for their close

monitoring of the projects. Against a total cost of Rs. 367.33 Cr Government

was kind enough to release Rs. 360.00 Cr in a single stroke.

1.1.3.4.1.4. Lift Irrigation Schemes in Kadapa (Andhra Region):

There are six EHV substations in Kadapa under Galeru Nagari-Chitravathi Lift

Irrigation Scheme. These substations are at GKLIS, Kondapuram,

Thimmapuram, Yellanur, Gaddamvaripalli and Goddumarri. Works at all the

places are commenced and in most of the places works are nearing

completion. The scheme was just initiated in 2007 and in a span of three

years all the substations will be commissioned. Against a total cost of Rs.

200.26 Cr Government was kind enough to release total amount in a single

stroke.

After reading the above said facts and figures one need not ask for more

proofs to state that Government is clearly biased towards Andhra region, and

Telangana region is completely neglected. In Telangana region the works are

at snail’s pace and funds are not released even though they are small

amounts. Government is closely monitoring the projects and has released full

funds for the projects in Andhra region.

1.1.3.4.2. Neglect of Telangana in the Implementation of High Voltage

Distribution System (HVDS)

High Voltage Distribution System (HVDS) aims at the replacement of the low

voltage network and installation of large number of smaller capacity 11KV/400

V transformers viz. 25 kVA and 16kVA for supply to agricultural consumers.

This system is best suited to meet the scattered low-density loads, observed

in the rural areas in India. The benefits of implementation of HVDS are many.

Agricultural pumpsets in Telangana region are more compared to Andhra

region. Also quality of supply is also not good considering the demand vs

installed capacity in this region. But the implementation and progress of this

scheme indicate clear bias of the Andhra rulers towards their region and

complete neglect of Telangana region.

Table 1.3: Progress in Implementation of HVDS to Agricultural

Pumpsets*

Region

No of

Agricultural

services as on

31-03-2009

HVDS

implemented

services

% total

services

selected in

each

region

Expenditure

incurred

(Rs. in

crores)

% of Total

expenditure

Andhra 1114114 377117 33.80 1310.55 73.1

Telangana 1566557 199413 12.70 483.61 26.9

Total 2680671 576530 1794.16

‘*’ Details on implementation of HVDS scheme at Annexure-4.

It can be seen that only 12.70% of total services in Telangana region are so

far covered under HVDS shceme, whereas 33.80% of total services are

covered in Andhra region. This has clearly resulted in higher allocations to

Andhra region. Andhra region got 73.1% of the total funds released so far

under this scheme, clearly indicating the discrimination against Telangana

region.

1.1.3.4.3. Indiramma programme:

Government of Andhra Pradesh has launched “Indiramma” (Integrated Novel

Development in Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas) scheme from 1st

April 2006 for achieving 100% saturation in Model villages in each district as

identified by the district administration. Progress of works under this program

shows clear neglect of Telangana region.

Table 1.4 : Progress in Electrification of Rural and Urban households

under Indiramma Scheme upto 30-11-2009*

Region Rural Urban Total %

Andhra 1327141 143563 1470704 76.1

Telangana 437413 22579 459992 23.9

Grand Total 1764554 166142 1930696

* Complete details at Annexure-5.

It can be seen that 75% of the total households electrified are in Andhra

region.

1.1.3.4.4. RGGVY:

The Government of India has introduced Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran

Yojna (RGGVY) programme in the year 2005 with an aim to provide access to

electricity to all the households in the country within 5 years. The RGGVY

programme has been launched by the Hon’ble Prime Minister on April 4th,

2005. The outlay is Rs 810.33 crores for four DISCOMS, out of which Rs

406.83 crores for infrastructure development and Rs 401.89 crore for

electrification of 2499517BPL households.

Funds released by REC far under this programme clearly reflect the progress

achieved in Andhra and Telangana regions under this program.

Table 1.5 : Release of Funds by REC Under RGGVY upto 30-11-2009*

Region Funds Released % of Total

Andhra 329.20 70.5

Telangana 138.39 29.5

Total 467.59

Details on status of RGGVY shceme in AP at Annexure-6

It can be seen that Telangana region got only 29.5% of the funds released

under this scheme so far indicating total neglect of this region.

1.1.3.5. Neglect in Setting Up Departmental Stores in APTRANSCO:

Departmental stores are required near the substations & Lines for storing

spares and consumables etc for carrying out break down and preventive

maintenance works with in minimum possible time so as to enable to minimize

power supply interruptions to consumers and to avoid tripping. Following is

the status of availability of stores in Andhra and Telangana regions in

APTRANSCO.

Table 1.6 : Region wise availability of Departmental Stores:

Andhra Telangana

Name of the ZoneNo. of

Stores

Name of the

Zone

No. of

StoresName of the Zone

No. of

Stores

Vizag TL&SS ZoneKadapa

TL&SS Zone

Hyderabad Metro

TL&SS Zone

Vizag 1 Kadapa 1 Hyderabad 1

Kadiyam 1 Karnool 1Hyderabad Rural

TL&SS Zone- NIL -

Vijayawada Zone

TL&SS ZoneThirupathi 1

Warangal

TL&SS Zone- NIL -

Boommur 1 - - - -

Gunadala 1 - - - -

Total

13 districts7

Total

per 10 districts1

From the above table, it is clear that 7 stores are available in Andhra region

whereas only one store exists in Telangana region. The only store that is

found in Hyderabad metro zone was established 50 years ago. There is no

addition of Stores in Telangana in these 50 years. Not even a single store

exists in Warangal/ APTRANSCO/ TL&SS/ Zone and Hyderabad /Rural/

APTRANSCO Zone covering 9 districts. Even the single store that exists in

Hyderabad is slowly being converted into scrap. Following are the main

disadvantages of non availability of stores in Telangana.

The number of break downs and interruptions of supply are more.

The time required for attending rectification of breakdowns and preventive

maintenance works is more and power supply interruption period will be

more for the Telangana people.

Employees of APTRANSCO feel that they are being discriminated against by

Andhra management in this regard.

1.1.3.6. Neglect in establishing Hot Line Sub-Divisions in APTRANSCO:

Table 1.7 : Hot Line Sub-Divisions in APTRANSCO- Region Wise

ANDHRA TELENGANA

Name of the Zone

No. of Hot line

sub-division

Name of the Zone

No. of Hot line sub-division

Name of the ZoneNo. of Hot line sub-division

Vizag

Tl&Ss Zone0

Kadapa Tl&Ss Zone

0Hyderabad Metro

Tl&Ss Zone0

Vizag 2 Nos. Kadapa 1 No. Hyderabad 1 No.

Rajamandry 1 No. Karnool 1 No.Hyderabad Rural Tl&Ss Zone

0

Vijayawada Zone

0 Warangal Tl&Ss Zone 0

Nellore 1 No. Ramagundam 1 No.

Vijayawada 1 No.

Total Hot Line Sub-Division for 13 Districts7 Nos.

Total Hot Line Sub-Division Per

10 Districts

2 Nos.

Hot line sub-divisions are required in APTRANSCO for carrying out works at

sub-station and lines during supply of power and equipment in charged

condition to avoid power supply interruptions. From the above table it can be

seen that only 2 sub-divisions are existing in Telangana region against 7 sub-

divisions in Andhra region. This is resulting in poor quality of supply and more

interruptions in Telangana region. Employment opportunities are also affected

due to non-creation of additional sub-divisions. This goes to show that

management of APTRANSCO dominated by Andhra employees in senior

cadres are to the needs of Telangana region.

Sheer discrimination:

While the total demand for power in Telangana region is about 54% the

infrastructure available for maintaining is insignificant and shows total

disregard to the needs of the region. Out of total number of 8 stores in the

state there is only one store in Telangana. Out of total number of 9 hot line

subdivisions in the state there are only 2 hot line subdivisions in Telangana

1.1.3.7. Reform Spirit thrown to winds by Andhra Vested Interests-Story

of APCPDCL:

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act’ 1998 was passed in AP as part of

reform process taken up in power sector. The main component of reform

process was to unbundle APSEB in to functionally separate companies to

look after Generation, Transmission and Distribution. The main reason stated

for unbundling was that the APSEB grew so big that it became unwieldy and

smaller companies would bring the power utilities, distribution companies in

particular, closer to the people. Thus it was felt that the companies should be

divided keeping in view geographical contiguousness and equitable

distribution of electrical loads. Hence distribution system in AP was divided in

to 4 companies, viz. APCPDCL, APEPDCL, APSPDCL and APNPDCL. In the

initial proposals APCPDCL and APNPDCL included only Telangana districts

but subsequently districts of Kurnool and Ananthapur were added without

stating any reason.

The main reason for including Kurnool and Ananthapur districts of Andhra

region into APCPDCL was that this would provide a way for Andhra People to

enter into key administrative and managerial positions. As expected almost all

the directors and Chairmen of APCPDCL appointed since the formation of the

company belonged to Andhra region. Only recently, when the demand for

Telangana reached its pinnacle, Andhra rulers tried to assuage the feelings of

Telangana people by appointing two directors from Telangana region in the

month of January, 2010. This has also allowed many employees belonging to

Andhra region to find their way to Hyderabad pushing aside employees

belonging to the Telangana region.

But inclusion of Kurnool and Ananthapur in to APCPDCL has many

disadvantages. Presently company wise allocation of power as % of total

demand for energy is given below:

Table 1.8 : Details of Allocation of Power to DISCOMS

Name of the CompanyCapacity Allocation as % of Total

Demand

APCPDCL 43.48

APEPDCL 16.70

APSPDCL 22.90

APNPDCL 16.92

It can be seen that the demand for energy of APCPDCL is more than double

when compared to any of the other three DISCOMS. This has resulted in

many problems for the consumers of the Company in terms of quality of

service. The spirit of reform process was thrown to winds by Andhra rulers for

their insatiable greed for power.

1.1.3.8. Awards for Andhra Projects:

While all APGENCO projects are known for their outstanding performance, it

is a sad fact that many times Kothagudem Thermal Power Plant was

deliberately backed down (resulting in lower PLF) without consideration for

merit order of generating stations just to get meritorious awards to projects

located in Andhra region. Though this trend has changed in recent years after

setting up of electricity regulatory commissions, yet some instances can be

quoted to show the bias of Andhra rulers to the projects located in their

region. One such example is that, in the year 2007 Government of AP issued

a direction to APGENCO not to back down RTPP, located in Andhra region,

under any circumstances. Though APGENCO is not responsible for deciding

the implementation of merit order of running its plant, this act of Government

clearly shows utter disregard of the Andhra rulers to the efficient functioning of

the sector and burden on the consumers on account of such acts.

1.1.3.9. Execution of works- Regionwise representation of contractors:

APGENCO, APTRANSCO and DISCOMS execute various works costing

thousands of crores every year through contractors. Most of these works are

grabbed by contractors belonging to Andhra region. Successive

managements of erstwhile APSEB and its successor entities dominated by

Andhra people have encouraged contractors through various means.

Obviously majority of registered contractors with power utilities belong to

Andhra region. For example, in APTRANSCO, out of 30 registered

contractors 25 belong to Andhra region and only 5 contractors belong to

Telangana region. Even in terms of value of works, works executed by

Telangana contractors is insignificant. The same trend can be seen in

APGENCO and other DISCOMS serving Telangana region also. Telangana

Contractors working in Andhra region is unthinkable even today. List of

contractors from Andhra and Telangana regions in APTRANSCO is placed at

(Annexure-7).

1.2. Region wise Demand vs generation capacity in Andhra Pradesh:

Telangana is endowed with huge reserves of coal and abundant water which

are essential inputs for the generation of power. Also demand for power for

agriculture is slightly high in Telangana region as canal and Tank irrigation is

totally neglected and people in this region are forced to depend on expensive

pumpset mode to draw ground water. But when we look at the installed

capacities in various regions, injustice done to Telangana region will be more

clear. Following table gives region wise installed capacities in Andhra

Pradesh.

Table 1.9: Region Wise Installed Capacities*

Installed CapacityTelangana Andhra Total

MW % MW %

Existing 4764 34 9258 66 14022

Under Constn/ Development

5936 25 17568 75 23504

Total 10700 28.5 26826 71.5 37526

Complete details at Annexure-8

Table 1.10: Region Wise Demand*

Telangana Andhra Total

MW % MW %

Max Demand as on 05-03-2010

5481 52 5091 48 10572

Complete details at Annexure-9

It can be seen that existing installed capacity in Telangana region is only 34%

of total installed capacity, whereas the restricted demand stands at 52%

resulting in huge demand supply gap. Main reason for this shortfall is that

several projects planned in this region were shifted to Andhra region and coal

reserves of Telangana are used for power generation for these shifted plants.

Most of the installed capacity in the Telangana region comes from Hydel

projects which were taken up primarily to cater to the needs of Andhra region.

Also construction is not taken up at many potential locations in Telangana

region for many decades leading to power crisis and low voltage problems in

this region.

Further, most of the new generating capacities under construction/

development are coming up in Andhra region. While 17568 MW are planned

in Andhra region, only 5936 MW are coming up in Telangana region. This is

reducing the share of Telangana from 34% to 28.50%.

*****

Part-II

Injustice Done To Telangana Region in Matters of Employment

Power sector creates many opportunities for employment for the unemployed

youth in generation, transmission and distribution segments of power sector.

Thus setting up of generating stations, transmission and distribution networks

not only solves the problems of power availability and shortages to the people

but also the solves the problem of unemployment, which is one of the main

problems faced by the society. Each major generating station requires

thousands of employees and corresponding transmission and distribution

networks require even more number of employees. Thus the policies of the

government in creation of power infrastructure play very important role in

creation of employment to various regions.

2.1. Discrimination against Telangana region in the appointments of

Chairmen/Board members/Directors:

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Department was established in the year 1956 after

the formation of Andhra Pradesh with the merger of Hyderabad State

Electricity Department and Andhra State Electricity Department. Subsequently

the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) was established on 01-

04-1959 as per orders of Government of AP in GO.Ms No. 722 PW dt 30-03-

1959, in terms of Section 5 of Electricity Supply Act, 1948. APSEB existed for

four decades until it was unbundled into two companies- APGENCO and

APTRANSCO, on 01-02-1999. Subsequently APTRANSCO was further

unbundled in to APTRANSCO and four Distribution companies (DISCOMS),

namely, Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited

(APCPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

(APEPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

(APSPDCL) and Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company

Limited (APNPDCL) during April, 2000. Function and jurisdiction of each of

the DISCOMs is given in the following table.

Table-2.1: Functions and Jurisdiction of Power Utilities in Andhra

Pradesh

Sl.No Company Function Jurisdiction

1 APGENCO Generation Entire State

2 APTRANSCO Transmission Entire State

3 APCPDCL Distribution

Telangana Region: Medak,

Rangareddy, Hyderabad,

Nalgonda, Mahboobnagar,

Andhra Region: Kurnool,

Anantapur

4 APEPDCL Distribution

Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram,

Visakhapatnam, East Godavari

and West Godavari (All districts in

Andhra Region)

5 APSPDCL Distribution Krishna, Guntur, Prakasham,

Nellore, Kadapa and Chittoor. (All

districts in Andhra Region)

6 APNPDCL Distribution

Adilabad, Nizamabad,

Karimnagar, Warangal and

Khammam. (All districts in

Telangana Region).

The APSEB was run by its Board Members headed by Chairman and were

appointed by the state Government. Board members, particularly Chairman of

the Board, played very important role in providing policy advice to the state

government, taking key decisions regarding planning and development of

power sector and running the day to day activities of the Electricity Board.

Thus the composition of Board members representing various regions gives a

fair indication about to the intentions of various Governments in developing

the power sector in various regions of Andhra Pradesh in an equitable

manner or not.

Information gathered by TEEJAC:

TEEJAC tried to gather information from the Government of AP and Power

utilities regarding particulars of Board Chairmen, Members, Directors and

employees under Right To Information Act, 2005 (Annexures-10, 11, 12). We

are yet to receive information from the Government. APCPDCL informed us

that information is not readily available with them regarding employee data

and they further stated that it will take more than one year time to gather

data from different operation circles. In view of the above, TEEJAC gathered

information from its own sources and used the same for analysis in this report.

Regionwise duration of Chairmen and Directors of APSEB from 1959-

1999 and Directors of APGENCO, APTRANSCO and Four Distribution

Companies:

Table-2.2: Region wise duration of Chairmen of APSEB( 1959-99)*:

Chairmen from 1959-1999

Telangana Andhra Telangana %

Duration in Days 730 10952 6.2

No. of Chairmen 2 7 22.2

Chairmen from 1974-1999

Telangana Andhra Telangana %


No. of Chairmen 0 4 0.0

*Complete details at Annexure-13

It can be seen that Chairmen appointed to the APSEB from Telangana region

served only for a duration of 22.20 % out of the total duration. The duration of

service of Chairmen of Telangana region after separate Andhra movement of

1972 from 1974-99 is Nil. This insignificant representation of Telangana

people at the highest level is due the fact that the Andhra rulers have further

strengthened their hold on State government after 1972.

Table-2.3: Details of Board Members of APSEB( 1959-99)*:

Board Members of APSEB during 1959-1999

Region Telangana Andhra Telangana %


No. of Board Members 16 89 15.2


Region Telangana Andhra Telangana %


No. of Board Members 7 54 11.5

* Complete details at Annexure-14

From the above table it is clear that even in the appointment of members of

APSEB, discrimination against Telangana is clear. Only 15.20% of total

directors appointed so far belong to Telangana region, who served for a

period of 14.0% of the total period, which is a clear indication of discrimination

against Telangana.

Table-2.4 : Details of Directors of APGENCO APTRANSCO and

DISCOMS* (1999-2010):

Region wise Duration of Directors in Days (1999-2010)

Telangana Andhra Telangana % Jurisdiction of Company

Genco 5831 16002 26.7 Entire AP

Transco 5817 17161 25.3 Entire AP

NPDCL 7246 8566 45.8 Telangana

CPDCL 5145 15510 24.9 85% Telangana

SPDCL 546 22344 2.4 Andhra

EPDCL 82 10366 0.8 Andhra

Overall 24667 89949 21.5 --

* Complete details at Annexure-15

Overall the representation of Telangana directors in terms of duration of

service, in the Board of directors, is only 21.5% for the period 1999 to 2010.

One can understand the magnitude of discrimination against Telangana

people by looking at the dismal representation in the Board of directors, i.e.

2.4% and 0.8% in Andhra region in APSPDCL and APEPDCL respectively.

Even in APCPDCL whose jurisdiction lies 85% in Telangana region,

representation of directors from Telangana in terms of duration of service is

only 24.9%. Even NPDCL which lies entirely in Telangana region,

representation of Telangana directors was very less in the beginning, but the

situation has slightly improved now with Telangana movement picking up in

the region. Yet, in terms of total duration served, it is still 55.2% by people

from Andhra region.

Situation in APTRANSCO and APGENCO is no different. The representation

of Telangana directors is around 25% in the past 10 years.

Expectedly these directors belonging to the Andhra region showed their

loyalty to their region and their Andhra rulers in all matters of policy, in

establishing generating stations, construction of Sub-stations and lines, O&M

works, recruitment, postings, transfers, promotions, awarding works to

contractors. In almost all spheres their clear bias towards Andhra region could

be seen.

Loss of Jobs to Telangana Youth:

Telangana youth have lost thousands of jobs in power sector mainly due to

three reasons:

Firstly, diversion of projects from Telangana region to Andhra region.

Secondly, non-execution of potential generation projects in Telangana region as planned.

Thirdly, non implementation of Presidential order for 3 ½ decades.

2.2. Loss of jobs due to diversion of Generation Plants from Telangana

region to other regions:

As already discussed at para-1.1.1, Andhra rulers have preferred to construct

the generation plants in Andhra region ignoring the interests of Telangana

region. They had shifted the plants supposed to be built in Telangana region

to Andhra region. One such example is shifting of plant from Manuguru,

Khammam district to Vijayawada during 1970s. Similarly RTPP is constructed

in Rayalaseema region where neither coal nor water is available for running

the plant. Both these plants use coal produced mainly from Singareni colleries

(SCCL) in Telangana region. Thus thousands of jobs in these projects have

been grabbed by the people belonging to Andhra region. While open cast

mines for exploiting coal rendered people homeless in Telangana region, they

are not even fortunate to get employment in the plants which run on coal

produced by dislodging them from their places. Also erstwhile APSEB

planned to construct a super thermal power plant in Ramagundam,

Karimnagar district. However Andhra rulers had allowed this plant to be

constructed by NTPC there by losing not only huge capacity but also loss of

jobs to thousands of unemployed youth of Telangana Region. The number of

jobs lost by Telangana region due to the exploitative policies of Andhra rulers

is given in the following table.

Table 2.5 : Loss of Employment to Telangana:

Telangana Quota in % as per Presidential Order

60% 70% 80%

Category of Posts Executive

Posts

Non-Executive

PostsO&M Posts Total

VTPS 874 544 1421 2839

RTPP 509 275 805 1589

Total Posts 1383 819 2226 4428

Reserved Quota for Telangana

829.8 573.3 1780.8 3183.9

50 % of open quota 276.6 122.85 222.6 622.05

Total posts lost by Telangana

1106.4 696.15 2003.4 3806

Thus the total number of posts lost by Telangana region is 3806 excluding

NTPC Ramagundam plant. A rough estimate of posts lost due to transfer of

RTS to NTPS for Telangana is about 3000. Thus 7800 Telangana families

have lost employement because of biased attitude of Andhra rulers.

2.3. Loss of jobs due to not taking up projects in Telangana region:

Erstwhile APSEB had identified several locations in Telangana region suitable

for setting up power plants. This was done after conducting detailed and

thorough investigations. Details are given at para 1.1.2. However

discriminatory attitude and neglect of Andhra rulers against Telangana region

was the main reason for not taking up these projects for many decades,

resulting in loss of thousands of jobs for Telangana youth.

The total capacity lost by Telangana Region is 4617 MW. Assuming 0.8 nos.

per MW for Hydel Stations and 1 person per MW for Gas based power plant,

total loss of employment for Telangana is 3,300 (75% of total employment

potential of 4,400).

2.4. Non-implementation of Presidential order in APSEB and its

Successor entities i.e. APGENCO, APTRANSCO and four Distribution

Companies:

2.4.1. Background:

Certain safeguards in employment were given to the people of backward

region of Telangana, so that they can survive and get their rightful share in

employment. The Mulki rules were in force at the time of integration of

Hyderabad state with Andhra State. The continuation of guarantees to

employment under mulki rules to the locals were endorsed under gentlemen’s

agreement (1956) and the subsequent 8 point formula (1969). But no sooner

than the integration had taken place, Andhra bureaucrats supported by

Andhra rulers behaved in an irresponsible manner in violating the Mulki rules.

The judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court declaring Mulki rules as valid were

thrown to winds.

Hon’ble Supreme court in its judgement delivered on 16-10-1972 ruled that

“Hyderabad State was one among several other Princely States of India. Due

to political conditions and historical reasons this State remained isolated.

There were no adequate educational facilities afforded to the people of the

State…” , “ So much so, that these people were not in a position to compete

with others in the matter of employment even in their own State, if no

protection was afforded to them in this behalf on the basis of within that State.

The constituent assembly while guaranteeing fundamental rights in the matter

of employment of various States felt it imperative to continue that protection in

the matter of employment afforded on the basis of residence within the State

and made provision under article 35(b) of the constitution for the continuance

of those Laws”.

The Andhra leaders never wanted any special protection to be given to the

people of Telangana in spite of their solemn assurance given in Andhra

assembly. The violent agitation that followed in Andhra forced the Prime

Minister to declare Six Point formula which resulted in rendering the

continuance of Mulki rules redundant.

The Presidential order, 1975 for implementation of Six Point Formula was

never implemented in the right direction. The entire Government machinery

was used to benefit the people from Andhra region. Sensing another agitation

in Telangana, Government issued G.O. Ms.No. 610 dated: 30-09-1985.

The Presidential Order, 1975 gave limited safeguards to “local candidates’ in

all the 23 districts as ‘ local areas’ for the recruitment upto and including LDC

level with 80% reservation for local candidates in each district, and 6 local

areas as 6 Zones for the rest of the non-gazetted posts with 70% reservation

for local candidates. It should not have been difficult for anyone to accept this

limited protection to local candidates throughout the State, but the narrow

vision of the bureaucracy mainly at the level of heads of departments and

their officers gradually tore the Presidential Order to shreds over the 35 years

from 18-10-1975 onwards. The one man commission report has brought out

all the deviation and violations from the Presidential Order. These have

adversely affected the rights, interests and opportunities of local candidates.

The scope of ‘local candidate’ status is itself so limited that one need not have

shaken the very foundations of the State for limited loaves and fishes. Only

four years of study upto 10th class makes a person a local candidate.

2.4.2. Status of Implementation of Presidential Order Andhra Pradesh

Power Sector:

Though the Presidential Order was issued in 1975, it was never implemented

in erstwhile APSEB. Even the successor entities of APSEB were reluctant to

implement the Presidential order. However pressure from the movement for

Telangana state forced the power utilities to implement Presidential order

from the year 2009 onwards +-, but in a limited way, that too with so many

distortions. Non implementation of Presidential Order for 34 years has

resulted in loss of many of jobs to Telangana youth. However there is no effort

from power utilities to identify the posts lost by Telangana youth due to non-

implementation of Presidential Order and undo the injustice meted out for

many decades.

2.4.3. Impact of non-implementation of Presidential Order:

Non implementation of Presidential order coupled with discriminatory policies

of Andhra rulers and managements of Power utilities have resulted in gross

under representation of people from Telangana region in various cadres. This

is clearly reflected in the region wise employee strength at head quarters of

APGENCO, APTRANSCO and APCPDCL and some important stations of

APGENCO.

Table- 2.6 Regionwise Representation of Employees at Head quarters of

APGENCO*, APTRANSCO** and APCPDCL***, Hyderabad*:

APGENCO, APTRANSCO, APCPDCL Head Quarters

Class of Employee

Telangana Andhra% of

Telangana

GENCOClass-I 21 99 17.5

Class-II 133 155 46.2

TRANSCOClass-I 40 90 30.8

Class-II 104 156 40.0

APCPDCLClass-I 33 28 54.1

Class-II 99 32 75.6

Class-III 47 36 56.6

* Details at Annexure-16

** Details at Annexure-17

*** Details at Annexure-18

Head quarters of any organization plays important role in the functioning of

organization. It can be seen that representation of Andhra employees in

Telangana region (Hyderabad) is significant in APGENCO, APTRANSCO and

APCPDCL. Particularly in Class-I cadre domination of Andhra employees is

very clear. In APGENCO in class-I cadre Telangana employees constitute

only 17.5% of the total employees. Andhra employees in higher positions

influence the decisions of the management and government in favour of

Andhra region.

Region wise representation of employees at various generating stations:

2.4.3.1.Generating Stations In Telangana region:

Table- 2.7 Regionwise Representation of Employees at Kakatiya Thermal Power Project of APGENCO at Bhupalapalli, Warangal District*.

Generating Stations in Telangana

Generating Station Class of Employee Telangana Andhra% of

Telangana

KTPPClass-I 1 12 7.7

Class-II 59 16 78.7

KTPS V&VIClass-I 10 25 28.6

Class-II 121 84 59.0

KTPS(O&M)Class-I 16 36 30.8

Class-II 275 169 61.9

NSHES EngnrsClass-I 2 5 28.6

Class-II 54 57 48.6

PJHEPClass-I 1 4 20.0

Class-II 14 16 46.7

LJHEPClass-I 0 3 0.0

Class-II 7 6 53.8

Pchmpd, Nzmsgr, Singur, Pdplly & Palair

Class-I 0 4 0.0

Class-II 29 13 69.0

SLBHESClass-I 6 12 33.3

Class-II 28 31 47.5

*Complete details at Annexure-19

It will be shocking to see that the representation of Telangana employees,

particularly in the Class-I cadres is insignificant even in the remotest places of

Telangana region. In a large project like Kakatiya Thermal Power Project

(KTPP) representation of senior level officers from Telangana is only 7.7%. In

Mini Hydel Power Plants and Lower Jurala Hydro Electric Scheme

representation of Telangana employees is zero.

2.4.3.3. Word of Caution:

In all the above tables most of the employees who are counted against

Telangana region are settlers in Telangana region who have migrated from

Andhra region violating the Mulki rules which were part of Gentlemen’s

agreement, 1956. If this factor is also taken into consideration injustice done

to Telangana people will be unimaginable.

Most of these employees settled in Telangana do not identify themselves with

Telangana people, ridicule Telangana culture and try to dominate employees

of this region taking advantage of their presence in key managerial positions.

2.4.4. Irregularities in implementation of Presidential Order, 1975:

Though Presidential Order is being implemented from 2009, there are many

irregularities, deviations and distortions taking place in the implementation of

above order resulting in injustice to Telangana region. Some instances are

presented below:

2.4.4.1. Wrong declaration of Zones:

Pulichintala project is being built downstream of Nagarjuna sagar dam at

Wadinepalli village, in Malla Cheruvu Mandal in Nalgonda District.

Construction of this dam is resulting in submergence of irrigation lands falling

under Nagarjuna sagar left bank canal ayacut in Nalgonda District. People of

this region obviously expected that this project would atleast give them some

jobs. But to everyone’s surprise APGENCO in its G.O.O. No. 276 dt: 02-09-

2008 declared that this project falls in Zone-III covering Guntur, Prakasham

and Nellore districts- all Andhra districts. Thus people of Telangana region not

only lost their lands but also their rightful share in the jobs created by this

project.

2.4.4.2. Suppression of posts in lower cadres to create higher cadre

posts resulting in loss of job opportunities in Telangana region.

Andhra rulers have found innovative methods to grab and divert the posts

meant for Telangana people. In the last decade government has stopped

creation of new posts in certain companies for certain categories of posts

even when there was dire need to create additional posts. However

Governments insisted that they are ready to create additional posts if some of

the existing posts in lower cadres are suppressed so that there would not be

any financial burden on the Government. This has resulted in suppression of

number of lower cadre posts which are lying vacant, particularly in Telangana

region, and creation of additional posts in higher cadres. As Presidential

Order is not applicable for most of the higher cadres this has resulted in loss

of many job opportunities for Telangana people. Details of suppressed posts

in APGENCO during 2008 are given below. (Annex-20)

Table 2.8 : Details of Suppressed Posts in APGENCO during 2008

Suppression of Posts

Head

Quarters

Telangana

Projects

Andhra

Projects

Suppressed (610 Applicable)

10 235 204

Created (610 Applicable) 0 90 65

Created (610 Not Applicable)

3 174 138

Similarly APTRANSCO has issued orders vide T.O.O.(Per-

Addl.Secy)Ms.No.70 dt: 06-07-2007 (Annexure-21) for sanction of additional

posts by way of upgradation and creation duly suppressing certain vacant

lower cadre posts. 31 posts were suppressed by APTRANSCO and it is learnt

that all these posts belong to Telangana region only.

2.4.4.3. Diversion of O&M posts belonging to Telangana region to other regions:

Recently APGENCO has stated diverting O&M posts of certain generating

stations to Andhra region. For instance about 6 O&M posts of Pochampad

hydro power station in Telangana region have been diverted to RTPP in

Andhra region resulting in loss of job opportunities for Telangana region.

2.4.4.4. Non-implementation of Presidential Order in Andhra Pradesh

Power Development Company Ltd (APPDCL):

The SPV in the name of Andhra Pradesh Power Development Company Ltd

(APPDCL) is set up as Joint Venture Company of APGENCO and

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial services (IL&FS), which commenced the

Developmental works of the Project with effect from 1st March,2006. There

are many allegations that recruitments are taking place in APPDCL without

following any procedure. It is learnt that employees are recruited on

outsourcing basis through contract system. Almost all the employees are from

Andhra region only.

2.4.4.5. Non-Implementation of Presidential Order in Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC):

APERC was established in the year 1999 as per the Andhra Pradesh

Electricity Reform Act 1998 as part of the reform process initiated in the

Power Sector. This organization requires people having expertise in various

fields at higher levels. However to provide assistance to senior level officers

several junior level posts like Typists, attenders, clerks and other posts like

watchmen, security people are required.

It is unfortunate that almost all the posts in APERC are filled up with people

from Andhra region, that too without any competitive examination for

recruiting these people. Initially these people are taken on outsourcing basis

through contractors and later on their services were regularized. APERC

ignored Presidential order and even the reservations guaranteed by

Constitution of India to underprivileged sections are ignored by the APERC.

Part-III

Telangana Power Sector – Myths and Realities

3.0. Andhra Rulers have systematically exploited, discriminated and neglected

Telangana power sector and on the other hand started spreading wrong

information regarding power sector to give an impression that Telanagana

region is the major beneficiary due to the formation of combined state of

Andhra Pradesh. Protagonists of “Samaikyandhra” mainly focus on (i) Tariff

Subsidies and (ii) Percapita consumption in Telangana region in support of

their argument. But all these arguments are baseless and can be proved

wrong. The detailed analysis is given in the following paras.

3.1. Subsidies to Telangana Power Sector:

Various figures quoted by the APTRANSCO, Four DISCOMS and the

Government of AP indicate that the tariff subsidies given to Telangana region

are high compared to the Andhra region. But these figures do not reflect the

true picture for the following reasons:

3.1.1. Shift from Differential Bulk Supply Tariff (D-BST) to Uniform Bulk

Supply Tariff (U-BST):

Prior to unbundling, erstwhile APSEB used to generate and supply electricity

to the consumers of the state. If there was any shortfall in energy, it used to

purchase energy from other sources like Central Generating Stations, Private

generators, other State Electricity Boards and supply to consumers. For this

APSEB used to enter into long term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with

the suppliers of power.

APSEB was unbundled into six corporations with the passage of reforms act

namely APGENCO, APTRANSCO and Four Discoms. At the time of

unbundling Government of AP, through first transfer scheme, had declared

APTRANSCO as the main successor entity for erstwhile APSEB. With this all

the PPAs were transferred to APTRANSCO from APSEB. Thus APTRANSCO

was purchasing power from various sources and sell the power to 4

DISCOMS at a rate known as Differential Bulk Supply Tariff (D-BST). While

fixing D-BST, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC)

used to take consumer profile of each Discom into account. Thus Discoms

with higher agricultural and domestic consumers (i.e. low paying capacity

consumers) were having lower D-BST compared to other Discoms. This had

resulted in uniform allocation of Government subsidy among all the Discoms.

However Government of India has enacted Electricity Act 2003 and it came

into force from 10-06-2003. One of the important provisions of Electricity Act

2003 is that it prohibits APTRANSCO from trading of electricity. That means

APTRANSCO can not buy and sell electricity but it should limit its activities to

transmission of electricity only. Accordingly APTRANSCO transferred all

PPAs under its control to four DISCOMS on 09-06-2005. Thereafter Discoms

started purchasing electricity directly from Generating stations as per the

terms and conditions of respective PPAs.

While transferring PPAs to DISCOMS it was decided to divide all the

generating plants in proportion to the demand of respective DISCOMs.

Accordingly Government of AP issued orders vide third transfer scheme

allocating generating capacities of AP in the following proportion.

Table 3.1 : Allocation of Generating Capacities among

DISCOMS

Name of DISCOM % Allocation of

Generating capacity

APCPDCL 43.48

APEPDCL 16.70

APSPDCL 22.90

APNPDCL 16.92

Total 100

Though everything looked okay to the normal eye, this in effect has

significantly changed the price at which each DISCOM gets its share of

electricity. The principle of pricing shifted from Differential BST to Uniform

BST. Thus there was sudden jump in the purchase price of electricity for

DISCOMS where agricultural consumption was high. NPDCL had to bear the

brunt of this change in policy. Suddenly there was quantum jump in the

figures of subsidy shown against NPDCL.

An illustration is given below to show the impact of shift from Differential BST

to uniform BST:

Table 3.2: Differencial BST Vs Uniform BST for DISCOMS

DISCOM D-BST IN 2005-06 If Average

BST is allowed

%Excess/Less

CPDCL 2.13 1.97 -7.50

EPDCL 2.31 1.97 -14.71

SPDCL 1.79 1.97 +10.05

NPDCL 1.50 1.97 +31.33

It can be seen from the above table that if uniform BST is allowed highest

beneficiary would be EPDCL with 14.71% reduction in power purchase costs

and on the other side highest loser would be NPDCL with 31.33% additional

burden on power purchase costs. This is the main reason one finds higher

subsidy allocation to NPDCL in the recent Tariff orders.

Thus non consideration of consumer mix while allocating Power Projects

among different regions has resulted in higher burden on DISCOMS in

Telangana region. This has resulted in higher power subsidy component in

the books of Telangana DISCOMS.

3.1.2 Transfer of Expensive Power from Andhra Regions to Telangana

Region:

If it was decided not to consider consumer mix while deciding power purchase

price of DISCOMS, it would have been logical to consider the location of

generating plants for allocation of PPAs. Generating plants with cheaper

generating costs are located in Telangana region, and costly private and non-

conventional plants are located in Andhra region. Transfer of burden of costly

power plants on Telangana region increased power purchase costs for this

region and this allowed government to artificially show higher subsidy to

Telangana region. To this extent burden on DISCOMS in Andhra region got

reduced. Average generating costs in Telangana and Andhra regions is given

in the following table.

Table 3.3: Average Power Generation Costs From Telangana and

Andhra Regions

Region Average Power Purchase Cost

(Rs/Unit)

Telangana 1.83

Andhra 2.38

It is unfortunate that while transferring the burden of costly generating stations

in Andhra region on all Telangana people, no effort was made to mitigate the

effect by considering the consumer mix in deciding the sale price to

DISCOMS.

3.1.3. Over estimation of Agricultural power Consumption:

The agricultural consumption projected by the utilities in Telangana region is

on higher side and this is resulting in higher subsidy figures for Telangana

region. This is clear from the following explanations:

(i) Non-deletion of dysfunctional Pumpsets: As surface irrigation is

neglected in Telangana region, farmers in this region are forced to depend on

pumpesets to draw ground water. Statistics show that pumpsets in Telangana

region are high compared to Andhra region. But many of the pumpsets which

are shown in the official list of DISCOMS are no longer functional as many

farmers in Telangana region gave up farming for various reasons and got

migrated to other places. However these connections continued to be shown

in the official list and one can not find even a single connection removed from

the official list since 1959. This has resulted in projecting higher consumption

for agriculture and helping DISCOMS to claim higher subsidies in the name of

agricultural supply to Telangana region.

(ii) Artificial Lowering of T&D Loss Figures: Lower Transmission and

Distribution (T&D) losses is regarded as an index for better performance of

the utilities. Agricultural consumption is unmetered. Hence power utilities take

advantage of this and try to hide all their inefficiencies under the guise of

agricultural consumption.

Total power consumption = Metered consumption + unmetered consumption

+ Transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses

From the above equation it is clear that metered consumption is difficult to

tamper with and on the other hand as agricultural consumption is unmetered,

they can easily increase the agricultural consumption in order to show lower

T&D losses. Energy audits conducted by the utilities are at best ‘ guestimates’

(Guess +Estimates) as noted by the APERC itself in one of its tariff orders.

The above statement can be easily be verified from the fact that in places

where agricultural connections are negligible, T&D losses are found to be very

high.

Table 3.4: Agricultural consumption and T&D losses in APCPDCL:

District No. of Agricultural

connections as on

30-03-2009

% of Agricultural

Consumption

Total T&D

losses(%)

Anantapur 159549 5.87 14.42

Kurnool 90026 3.31 16.27

Mahaboobnagar 182628 6.72 18.74

Nalgonda 235129 8.65 14.86

Medak 179430 6.6 14.97

Rangareddy 101396 3.73 13.83

Hyderabad 1003 0.04 20.90

Total 949161 16.35

Annexure-22

It can be seen from the above that the agricultural connections in Hyderabad

is negligible when compared to total connections in CPDCL. This has forced

APCPDCL to declare actual quantum of T&D losses in Hyderabad district as

tampering with metered consumption is very difficult. On the other hand as the

number of connections is high in other districts, CPDCL has increased the

agricultural consumption only to show that their T&D losses are within

permissible limits.

It is clear from the above illustrations that the actual agricultural consumption

is very less when compared to the figures projected by the Discoms. Thus the

actual subsidy required for agricultural sector is significantly less. Utilities

have to improve their performance to reduce the T&D losses.

(iii) Connected Load Vs Agricultural consumption:

By analyzing connected load for agricultural consumers and agricultural

consumption in each region, it can easily be seen that agricultural

consumption in Telangana region is highly overestimated in order to show low

T&D losses by the utilities.

Following table gives the Companywise connected loads and consumption of

agricultural pumpsets projected by the Utilities:

Table 3.5 : Discomwise Agriculture Connected Load Vs Agricultural

Consumption

Company

Agl. Connected

Load in KVA

(Transco

Statistical reports)

Agricultural

Consumption in KWH

(Tariff Order 2009-10,

Table 64)*

Remarks

APEPDCL 914824 1323 Andhra

APSPDCL 3145950 3456 Andhra

APCPDCL 3322621 6235Telangana+

Anantapur&Kurnool

APNPDCL 2918554 3055 Telangana

Total 10301949 14068

Annexure-23

Table 3.6 : Regionwise Agriculture Connected Load Vs Agricultural

Consumption

RegionConnected

Load (KVA)

Connected

Load % of

Total Load

Agricultural

Consumption

% Agl.

ConsumptionRemarks

Andhra 4854534 47.12 5838 41.4

Anantapur

&Kurnool

including

Telangana 5447415 52.87 8230 58.6

Anantapur &

Kurnool

deducted

Total 10301949 100 14068 100.00

It can be seen from the above that with connected load of 47.12% Andhra

region’s consumption is 41.4%, where as with 52.87% connected load,

Telangana agricultural consumption is shown as 58.6%, which is obviously on

higher side. This is irrational because, with supply hours to agriculture limited

only to 7 hrs, all the farmers will use their pumpsets whenever power supply is

given. Hence Agricultural consumption should be more or less proportional to

connected loads in all the regions. If Consumption in Andhra region is taken

as the basis, the % consumption in Telangana region should be around 46.45

% instead of 58.60% shown by the Discoms. And thus Consumption in

Telangana region should be around 6535 mu and not 8230 mu shown. Thus

the actual ‘subsidy’ required is lower than what is projected by the Discoms.

3.2.1. Per capita Consumption of Electricity:

One of the important parameters which is used by certain vested interests to

undermine the injustice done to Telangana region is the ‘percapita

consumption of electricity’ in Telangana region vis-à-vis other regions. But this

argument is flawed with many defects. Following table gives percapaita

consumption of electricity in each district of various regions of Andhra

Pradesh.

Table 3.7: percapaita consumption of electricity in each district of

various regions of Andhra Pradesh.

Sl.No

District

2008-09

Domestic Agricultural

Industrial (Including

cottage and H.T)

All Categories

1 Srikakulam 93 25 110 295

2 Vizianagaram 91 34 280 465

3 Visakhapatnam 177 24 269 659

4 East Godavari 153 80 110 418

5 West Godavari 154 245 153 630

TOTAL EPDCL 142 90 176 506

6 Krishna 209 58 152 494

7 Guntur 153 58 236 499

8 Prakasam 105 164 119 427

9 Nellore 148 137 208 573

10 Chittoor 112 258 163 650

11 Cuddapah 99 352 125 633

TOTAL SPDCL 142 158 171 542

12 Anantapur 79 323 218 669

13 Kurnool 92 101 171 415

14 Mahbubnagar 45 428 249 769

15 Nalgonda 73 476 437 1126

16 Medak 89 460 690 1292

17 Ranga Reddy 326 194 527 1285

18 Hyderabad 453 0 190 1057

TOTAL CPDCL 173 270 296 932

19 Warangal 107 362 59 616

20 Karimnagar 110 253 94 665

21 Khammam 119 124 115 463

22 Nizamabad 111 545 41 754

23 Adilabad 93 166 214 560

TOTAL NPDCL 108 288 102 613

ANDHRA PRADESH (Including Captive

Generation)140 195 255 746

From the above table it can be seen that the per capita consumption of

electricity of AP is 746 units and for Telangana region comprising of

APCPDCL and APNPDCL PCC is 932 and 639 respectively, whereas for

Andhra region consisting of APEPDCL and APSPDCL per capita consumption

is 506units and 542 units respectively. Based on this some people argue that

PCC of electricity in Telangana region. But this is not true.

This is because even though overall PCC appears to be high in Telangana

region, actual standards of living of people is reflected by not the overall

power consumption, but PCC of domestic sector which clearly reflects the real

development in Telangana people.

While average PCC for domestic sector in AP is 126 units, PCC of domestic

sector in Telangana region is much lower in many of its districts. PCC of

domestic sector in 8 Telangana districts is summarized below:

Table 3.8 : Per Capita Consumption of Electricity for Domestic Sector

in Telangana:

Name of District

in Telangana

Region

PCC of

Domestic

sector

State

Average

% Excess / Less in

comparison with State

Average

Mahbubnagar 45 126 -64.29

Nalgonda 73 126 -42.06

Medak 89 126 -29.37

Warangal 107 126 -15.08

Karimnagar 110 126 -12.70

Khammam 119 126 -5.56

Nizamabad 111 126 -11.90

Adilabad 93 126 -26.19

It is clear from the above that the PCC in 8 out of 10 districts in

Telangana region is significantly lower than the state average. However, the

PCC of electricity in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy districts camouflages the

actual backwardness in Telangana districts. This is mainly because most of

the industries located in this region belong to people of either Andhra or Other

states and their consumption of electricity is increasing the overall

consumption in Telangana region. Less than average PCC of domestic sector

in Telangana region is also indicative of the fact that the benefits of

development have not reached Telangana people. The following table giving

regionwise PCC of electricity establishes this fact.

Table 3.9 : Regionwise Percapita Consumption of Electricity in

Domestic Sector

RegionPCC of Domestic

sector

Average PCC of

Domestic Sector in

AP (Excluding

Hyderabad and

Rangareddy)

% Excess or Less

Andhra 142 128 +

Telangana

(excluding Hyderabad

and Ranga Reddy)

93 128 -

While average PCC of electricity for domestic sector in Telangana Region is

much lower than the state average, PCC of electricity in Andhra Region is

much higher than the state average. This clearly indicates that the fruits of

development have reached only Andhra people and not Telangana people.

3.2.2. Myths about Revenue from Small Domestic Consumrs:

Even the poor domestic consumers of Telangana region face similar

problems. Though the tariff applicable to poor domestic consumers is low,

most of the times it is these consumers who end up paying highest per unit

cost to the utilities due to the manipulations of power utilities. This is how it

happens. Tariff applicable for domestic consumers who fall in the slab of 0-50

units per month is Rs 1.45/Unit. Average consumption of poor domestic

consumer in the Telangana region is around 20 to 25 units. Thus bill should

have been Rs 29/- to Rs 36/- per month. But poor consumer ends up paying

Rs 70/- per month. i.e. about Rs 3.50 per month. DISCOMS use minimum

charges which is dependent on connected load of the consumers. If

connected load is below 250 watts, minimum charge applicable is Rs 25/- per

month, whereas for connected load above 250 watts, minimum charge is Rs

50/- per month. Interestingly most of the poor domestic consumers are

categorized as consumers with connected load above 250 watts. Thus

whatever the consumption electricity bill one pays is Rs 50/- per month. In

Addition to this customer charges of Rs 15/- and Electricity duty of 6 paise per

unit is also collected from the consumers. All this adds up to Rs 70/- per

month, i.e about Rs 3.50 per month, which is comparable to tariff applicable to

any other high end consumers. Many such instances have been brought to

the notice APERC during public hearings by civil society groups, but the

managements, mainly controlled by Andhra people, ignore even the

Commissions directive to correct such kind of practices. Many consumers are

not aware of these intricacies and continue to suffer silently and pay whatever

the bill that is served on them from their meager incomes. It is said that this

practice is very common in Telangana region.

Part-IV

How the Slogan of ‘Samaikyandhra’ helping Capitalists

with Vested Interests from Andhra Region

4.1. ‘United Robbery’ in the name of ‘United State’:

In the All Party Meeting held on December 7th 2009, all the political Parties

have unequivocally assured that they would support the motion for Separate

Telangana State, if it is placed in the AP Legislative Assembly. And on

December 8th 2009 all major political parties including BJP have expressed

their willingness in the Parliament to form Separate Telangana State and the

BJP assured that it will support the Bill if it is tabled in the Parliament. In the

early hours of December 9th 2009, in the midnight at about 11.35 pm the

Central Government declared that it would initiate the process for the long

awaited dream of the people of Telangana for a separate Telangana State.

And that according to Article (3) of the Constitution of India there is no need

for the State Assembly (AP) to pass a resolution for a separate State. Only a

Draft may be sent to the Assembly for its opinion. There need not be any

voting on it. It is a formality to seek Assembly’s opinion. It is at this crucial

juncture the bristling of the capitalists started. Some vested interests,

Capitalists, and few leaders started an artificial agitation in their respective

areas, in the name of Unified Andhra. And irrespective of their parties the

political leaders of the Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema sparked a

movement for United Andhra. Their interest in sparking this movement is to

protect their investments, ill gotten wealth and maintain political supremacy

through money power. They are least bothered about the welfare of people of

Andhra Region or Telangana Region. Wielding the mask of United Andhra

they are attempting to perpetuate unified robbing. They do not want to forego

their hold on the natural wealth of the unified state. This could be clearly

understood from a cursory look at the following facts.

4.1.1. Robbing in the name of LANCO :

The well known Capitalist of the State Mr. Lagadapati Rajagopal, has a 359

MW Lanco Power Project at Kondapalli, Vijayawada. And the State Power

Sector is paying LANCO a huge sum of around Rs. 330 Crores per annum

towards Fixed Costs even if a single unit is not generated there. This fixed

cost should not have been more than Rs. 250 Crores i.e. about Rs. 80 crores

of peoples money is being paid to LANCO every year through deceitful

means. How is it possible?

In the year 1995 the Government of AP decided to install about 2000

MW capacity of Power Generation under the Private Sector. Bids were called

for and were opened. M/s Gowthami Power was the L1 i.e. the lowest bidder.

And M/s LANCO has quoted a price which was about 30 paise per unit higher

towards Fixed Cost. Having quoted higher their bid was ought to have been

rejected. But against the norms, M/s Lanco was also allowed to set up the

short gestation project stating that they have mentioned the gestation period

of the project to be just sixteen months against 26 months quoted by other

bidders. Since they had projected a reduction of 10 months in the Project

completion period, they were allotted the Project and were allowed a fixed

cost, higher by about 30 paise than the LI tenderer, for 359 MW. This

accounts for Rs. 80 Crores per annum and till date it came to a total of about

Rs.1000 Crores of excess payment. The aggrandisement game did not end

here, as per the agreement the Project commenced in March 1997 should

have been completed by July 1998. But the project was completed in October

2000. i.e. it took 43 months time against a guaranteed period of 16 months.

Since time was the essence of the agreement which is why, the project was

awarded even at a higher cost. But there was time over run but no effort was

made to reduce the costs even on par with Gautami power project if not less.

There are accusations with regard to the costs of Gas Pipeline etc. for this

infamous project. The deviations and departure from set norms were so

enormous that APTRANSCO and DISCOMs had to file cases in courts

against Lanco.

4.1.2. GVK Power:

GVK Power is another flabby giant in the state in the hands of Capitalists. It is

a project at Jegurupadu of East Godavari District. In the name of reforms this

project was snatched from the basket of APGENCO. In fact this project was

originally to be developed by APGENCO who carried out initial surveys, got

various necessary permissions / clearances from competent authorities, and

acquired the required land also. APGENCO has planned the project with a

capacity of 400 MW at a cost of Rs. 516 Crores. But the Project in midway

was given away to M/s GVK Power an establishment again owned by a

Capitalist from Andhra Region. After acquiring the GVK Project they reduced

the installed capacity from 400 MW to 216 MW and instead of reducing the

cost of the project relatively, they constructed the project at a whopping cost

of Rs. 816 Crores. This very adjustment shows how corrupt are the issues

concerning this Project. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has

castigated M/s GVK Power on the issue. (CAG report-2002)

4.1.3. Grabbing of Genco Lands:

One more leader who has been strongly supporting the united Andhra slogan

is none other than sri. T. Subbirami Reddy. In 1990 the APGENCO had

planned to construct a thermal project of 1000 M.W. at Krishanapatnam in

Nellore Dist. For this purpose, nearly 1800 acres of land was acquired from

innocent and poor farmers. On the pretext of reforms this project was

transferred to M/s.Reliance Co. But yielding to massive objections raised by

the people, the Govt.of AP announced that the land has been again taken

back from M/s Reliance and being handed over to APGENCO. But for

reasons unknown, one fine day, the Govt. of AP issued a G.O stating that this

total land has been allotted (bestowed) to Sri.T.Subbirami Reddy’s

M/s.Thermal Power Tech Corporation of India (Annexure-24). No leader from

Andhra raised a voice on this issue. This shows that the Andhra lobby is

united in robbing the State and in order to hide their nefarious designs they

are inciting the common people of their region with false propaganda about

loss of employment opportuities. They are more concerned about loss of their

hold on natural resources of the state than about employment opportunities of

common people.

It may be noted that all the Power Projects under Private Sector in AP

are established in the Andhra Region and are in the hands of Andhraits only.

All projects like, GVK, Gowthami, Vemagiri, Konaseema, Spectrum etc. are

located in Andhra Region. Out of 2750 MW Gas based projects not a single

project is located in Telangana Region. The above fact is enough to

understand the selfish tendency of the leaders of Andhra Region, and how

they have been exploiting the resources of the State to their absolute favor at

the cost of people of the other regions of the State and the betrayal to the

people of Telangana Region. The required gas for all the above projects is

available in the Krishna Godavari Basin. This shows that how the Andhra

Lobby has firm grip over the Natural Resources of the State. Having huge

employment potential, had the above projects been in the hands of

APGENCO they would have been valuable Assets for the State, instead of

being a Liability and a Burden for the State to the tune of thousands of crores

of Rupees.

4.2. How The ‘Unified’ Slogan Profits The Capitalists Of Andhra?

The leaders of Andhra are frightening their people with an ominous picture of

post bifurcation. They portray that the people of Andhra will not get the waters

of Krishna and Godavari Rivers, they will not get coal from the Singareni Coal

Collieries, and their employment opportunities will be abandoned. The future

of their people would be on tenterhooks and grim in Hyderabad. With this kind

of baseless provocations, they are trying to sidetrack the attention of the

people and are busy in grabbing these resources and converting them into

their personal wealth.

4.2.1. Let Us Examine The Issue of 80:20:

The total installation capacity of GVK extension project, VEMAGIRI,

GOWTHAMI and KONASEEMA Power Projects is 1500 M.W. All these four

(4) projects belong to Andhra Capitalists. According to the power purchase

agreement they have entered, the entire power generated by these projects

should be sold only to APTRANSCO. The projects were supposed to be

accomplished by 1998-1999, but were not completed even upto 2007 The

reasons for this delay are their inefficiencies and incapability besides the non

availability of natural gas during that period. As per the agreement they had to

pay the penalty for the delay in completion of the Project and failure to supply

Electricity to APTRANSCO. But, leaving aside the payment of penalty,

conversely they blamed the APTRANSCO with their baseless allegations to

the Govt. and the Govt. yielded to their demand and issued G.O.Ms No. 135

according to their wishes, duly agreeing to exempt 20% of Power generation

from compulsory sale to APTRANSCO, thus out of the total 1500 MW they

were allowed the liberty to sell 300 MW and the extra generation of 50 MW in

the open market to whomsoever they liked.(Annexure-25) Doing so, they

would gain profits of around Rs. 1500 Crores. . This burden again would be

thrusted upon the public. There was a lot of resentment from public and

experts opposed this decision before the Andhra Pradesh Electricity

Regulatory Commission (APERC). At last the Commission kept aside this

partisan G.O. But still the companies did not stop their trials. They moved the

High Court. By not withdrawing G.O.No. 135 even after serious lapses pointed

out by APERC, Government of AP is only helping this handful of Andhra

capitalists.

This kind of robbery could happen in the unified Andhra Pradesh only. All

kinds of such conspiracies will be known to the public if the Telangana state is

formed. This is the reason why they lobby for combined state for their selfish

interests.

Let us observe one more example of their robbing irrespective of their

regions;

4.2.2. K.G.Basin Gas –In the Lap of Andhra Capitalists:

Of late, the natural gas reserves worth lakhs of crores of rupees were found in

Krishna-Godavari Basin. It is quite natural that, as the mines were found in

A.P. the people of A.P. expected the lion’s share in its reserves and were very

concerned about it. The 10th Finance Commission also proposed that 50%

share in profit gas must go to the states where the gas reserves were found.

But the Central Govt. has ignored these proposals and shown an empty hand

to the state. Aggrieved by this action, the people of State started agitation with

the slogan “K.G Basin Gas –The Right Of Andhra Pradesh’. The Gas reserves

found are so enormous and rich that even if 10% Gas share from K.G.Basin is

given to AP the farmers of A,P. could be given 9 hours free supply of power

for decades to come, gas could be supplied to every house at Rs,100/- .per

month and gas could be supplied at a much cheaper rate than petrol. When

the people of Andhra Pradesh state were fighting for their rightful share of

natural gas, some selected Andhra capitalists started lobbying with the state

and central governments to grab the Gas. If their efforts bore fruit, only the

selected half-a -dozen capitalists would be benefited by the allocation of gas

to the state. Once the proposals of the state government to allocate the gas to

these people are accepted by the central govt. these people will launch and

construct the Gas based Power Projects, with thousands of M.W capacity,

plans for which they have already chalked out. Thereby the precious electrical

power will be sold to other States at higher rates enabling private power

producers to amass crores of Rupees leaving Andhra Pradesh state power

starved.

Following are the details of plans: The Andhra capitalists have plans to

construct the following Gas based Power Projects with the gas found in the

Krishna Godavari Basin under the merchant power Project status.

Table 4.1: Details of the Merchant Power Plants under Development:

Sl.No. Name of the Power Project Installed Region located

Capacity

(MW)

1. Lanco 1740 Andhra

2. GVK 400 Andhra

3. Gauthami 1200 Andhra

4. Konaseema 820 Andhra

5. Vemagiri 820 Andhra

6. Vemagiri(Barge mounted) 320 Andhra

7. Spectrum 1350 Andhra

From the above it is evident that there has been a very imbalanced growth in

AP with total concentration of Power Projects in Andhra Region only,

absolutely ignoring the Telangana Region. Further, under the influence of the

covert tactics of these capitalists, the Government has drafted a Merchant

Power Policy that facilitates the Independent Power Producer (Private Sector)

to sell about 75% of the Power produced out side the state. Thus the power

produced in AP will be sold and sent out of the state for personal gains of the

capitalists. If the Telangana State is formed, this conspiracy will become

public and the people of Andhra will also learn about the mischievous trade

arrangements. It is to conceal such clandestine agreements and benefits, that

the capitalists of Andhra are raising the slogan of ‘United Andhra’. In fact, if

separate Telangana State is formed, with the given spread of Natural

Resources, Telangana Region can be developed with the coal, water and

other natural resources available and the Andhra Region can be developed

with the Natural Gas reserves available in KG Basin. But the selfish mottos of

Andhra capitalists can be fulfilled only if the state is united. That is why

robbing in the disguise of “United Andhra” slogan.

4.2.3. Lanco- Looting already started:

While we were discussing about the fears that Andhra Power lobby would

grab entire K-G basin gas in the name of the people of the state and sell

power generated using that gas in the open market throwing the State into

darkness, it has already become a reality. Second stage of gas based power

project, with installed capacity of 366 MW, belonging to Sri Lagadapati

Rajagopal of Lanco group at Kondapally, Vijayawada has already started

producing power from the last week of February, 2010, using K-G basin gas.

This power, as expected, is being sold to other states and in the open market

at exorbitant prices. Nobody knows how Lanco could get K-G basin gas

allocation from Government of India, without the recommendation from the

State government. It is also not clear why the Karimnagar Gas Project in

Telangana region is not given gas allocation by the Central government and

forced to go for fuel tie up with highly expensive Regasified- Liquified Natural

Gas and a merchant plant like Lanco is given cheaper K-G basin gas. It is

already learnt M/s Vemagiri Power Project belonging to Andhra capitalist is

also planning to sell entire 220 MW power from their new barge mounted

power plant, in the market, with K-G basin gas.

Strangely APGENCO is not having any gas based project on hand and State

government looks in no hurry to start gas projects, with APGENCO as

developer, while the entire state is reeling under severe power cuts. It is only

a matter of time that all these Andhra capitalists would get hold of K-G basin

gas and in the meantime provoke people from Andhra with the slogan of

‘Samaikyandhra’.

Part-V

Power Sector in Telangana if it remained a separate State

5.1. Many people come up with this question- how power sector would have

looked like if Telangana had remained a separate state without merging with

Andhra State in 1956. This may intrigue many, but those who are familiar with

power sector have no second opinion about how it would have looked like!

5.2. We have already seen status of power sector in Telangana and Andhra

regions prior to the formation Andhra Pradesh state. Hyderabad State

Electricity Department which served Telangana region during those days was

established in the year 1910, whereas Madras State Electricity Department

which was supplying electricity to Andhra region was formed much later

during 1927-28. By 1915 Hyderabad was already one of the best lit cities in

the country. Hence no one can claim credit for the development of this city

except people of Telangana who have shed their blood and sweat for building

this beautiful city with best infrastructure. Though other districts of Telangana

were not that fortunate but there were about 95 private electrical distribution

undertakings who obtained license under Indian Electricity Act 1910 were

supplying electricity in Telangana districts.

5.3. On the other hand none of the cities/towns of Andhra region could stand

anywhere near to be compared with Hyderabad city at that time. The per

capita consumption of electricity of Andhra region when they were part of

Madras state was 5 units against national average of 14 units, which was one

of the lowest in the country. The situation had slightly improved with the

setting up of interstate project with Orissa at Machkund during 1955. But

Andhra State after separation from Madras State had to look for fuel source

for the production of electricity which was not available anywhere in Andhra

region. Rulers of Andhra realized that the best and easiest way to get rid of

power crisis and the problem of capital city for Andhra State was to capture

the Telangana region which is endowed with huge resources of water and

coal and best infrastructure in Hyderabad city.

5.4 But the situation in Telangana prior to formation of Andhra Pradesh was

totally different. Telangana, with huge coal and water resources and best

infrastructure in Hyderabad city was, set for a rapid growth interms of power

development. Projects like Nizamsagar and Ramagundam Thermal Power

Station (also known as Azamabad Thermal Power Station) were already

commissioned and many projects were planned prior to the formation of

Andhra Pradesh.

5.5. Unfortunately Telangana region was discriminated neglected and

exploited pushing power sector in this region into doldrums. As already

discussed many pit head projects were not taken up, many projects were

diverted to Andhra region, many projects with potential for power development

are languishing for decades and those projects which overcame all the

hurdles are facing enormous delays due to neglect of Andhra rulers. While

Andhra rulers had no hesitation in shifting the coal based projects from

Telangana region to Andhra region in the name of all round development of

the State, they never cared to set up even a single project in Telangana with

natural gas that is available in their region.

5.6. As many projects were not taken in this region, demand and supply gap

is ever increasing. Contrary to this installed capacity in Andhra region is

much higher than the demand in that region. (See Table 1.9 & 1.10). This has

not only improved power supply position in Andhra region but also created

thousands of additional jobs which they would not have got without joining

with Telangana.

5.7. People of Telangana now feel helpless. Farmers and poor domestic

consumers who constitute 90% of the consumers in Telangana region face

the wrath of manipulations by Andhra rulers and its administration.

5.8. With all their manipulative skills Andhra rulers are trying to make farmers

in this region believe that they are the culprits for the poor state of power

sector in Andhra Pradesh. ‘Free power’ is shown as panacea for all problems

faced by the farmers. Quality of power supply is completely neglected. Supply

is restricted to 7 hours per day that too in 2 to 3 spells. Supply is mainly given

during night time which forces farmers to sleep away from their families. They

wait whole night without knowing when the supply would start and end. With

poor quality of power supply motor burnouts is a common phenomenon in

Telangana region posing huge burden on farmers. Farmer’s deaths due to

electric shocks in Telangana region are highest in the state.

5.10. Successive governments have promised 24 hour power supply all the

households and increased power supply to Agriculture. But they remain as

distant dreams for Telangana people. Though, some of other districts in

Andhra Pradesh like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Anantapur etc, face similar

situation, which can not justify the neglect of Telangana region also. Why

should people of Telangana having all the resources available in their region

suffer on account of short sighted and exploitative policies of rulers from

Andhra? Now people of Telangana realize, Telangana is not a backward

region but its backwardness is forced upon them by Andhra rulers.

Let us now see how situation would have been if Telangana remained as a

separate state without merger with Andhra State during 1956:

5.11. Power Sector in Telangana If it remained as a Separate State:

Presently Telangana region is facing severe power shortages. Power supply

position here would have been different if some of the important power

projects contemplated in this region had taken off. Telangana if it remained as

a separate state it would have been possible to complete these projects

without much difficulty. Entire revenue surplus generated in this region due to

the presence of cheaper generation sources (as most of the generation is

either hydel or from pit head plants) got diverted to Andhra region all these

years. In Telangana state this entire revenue surplus would have been used

for creation of new generating capacities. Power supply scenario in

Telangana State is presented below assuming that most important and

economical projects would have been completed by now.

Table 5.1. Total Energy Requirement for Telangana region

( As per the Tariff Order 2009-10):

Energy requirement for CPDCL 31564 MU

Energy requirement for NPDCL 10027 MU

Deduct energy requirement for Anantapur and kurnool districts

(Andhra region)

5365 MU

Total power requirement for Telangana Region 36226 MU

Table 5.2. Available Energy and Cost of Power Purchase:

Name of the

Project

Installed

capacity

(MW)

Available

Energy

(MU)

Cost/Unit

(Rs)

Total Cost

(Rs.Cr)Remarks

Manuguru

Thermal Power

Project (Shifted

to Vijayawada)

1760 10392 2.15 2234.28For thermal

projects 90% PLF

is assumed.

1966 MU is

deducted from

KTPP-I, which was

already

KTPP-Stage I &

II1100 6706 2.07 1388.142

Shankarapally

Gas Power

1400 11012 2.8 3083.36

Project

considered.KTPS-VI 600 4730 2.07 979.11

Sattupally TPS 600 4730 2.07 979.11

Total Hydro

Power Projects1000 2628 1 262.8

It is assumed that

1000MW capacity

is dded at various

potential locations

mentioned at

Table-1.1. PLF for

Hydel plants is

assumed to be30%

Total 6460 40198 2.22 8927

Table 5.3. Details of Expenditure and Revenue for FY 2009-10:

Expenditure

Energy available from Existing Stations 26213 MU

Total additional energy available 40198 MU

Total energy available including existing stations 66411 MU

Cost of power from existing stations Rs 4807 cr.

Cost of additional power (for 40198 MU) Rs 8927 Cr

Total Power purchase cost of power for 66411 MU Rs 13734 Cr

Other costs: SLDC, Transmission expenses, Distribution cost,

PGCIL expenses, ULDC epenses, Interest on consumer deposits,

supply margin

Rs 1976 Cr

Total Expenditure Rs 15710 Cr

Revenue:

Revenue from sale of Power

Revenue for CPDCL from sale of Energy Rs 7388 cr

Revenue for NPDCL for 2009-10 from sale of Energy Rs 1606 cr

Deduct revenue form Anantapur and Kurnool districts Rs 800 cr

Revenue from Telangana region from sale of power to consumers Rs 8194 cr

Revenue from sale of surplus power:

Total energy available = 66411 MU

Power requirement for Telangana Region=36226 MU

Surplus power available for Trading = 30185 MU

Assuming this power would be sold at Rs 3.50 per unit in the market,

Total revenue from sale of surplus power:3018.5x3.5

Rs 10565 cr

Total revenue from Sale of Power Rs 18759 Cr

Revenue Surplus in Telangana Region Rs 3049 cr

5.11.4. Thus if Telangana remained as an Independent state, power sector in

this region would have generated surplus revenues. This surplus revenue and

energy could have been used to improve the quality of supply of electricity to

agriculture and domestic consumers. It would have been possible to extend 9

hour power supply to Agriculture and 24 hour power supply to all households

even in rural areas.

5.4. Additional Expenditure due to increasing hours of supply to

Agriculture from 7 hrs to 9 hrs and 24 hour supply to domestic

consumers:

Additional energy required for Agriculture (Additional 2

hours): 8230*2 /7

2351 MU

Additional energy required for Domestic Sector if 24 hrs

supply is extended to Telangana Region:

Existing demand for domestic sector: 4316+1661 = 6862

MU (Kurnool and Ananthapur districts consumption is not

considered)

Additional energy requirement (Additional 4 hours per

day):1140 MU

1140 MU

Total additional power required for Agriculture and Domestic

sectors assuming 20% T&D losses =2351 + 1140 = 3491

/0.80

4364 MU

Cost of additional power purchases ( This is equal to

reduction in revenue from marketing power)

i.e. 436.4x3.50

Rs 1528 cr

Revenue from sale of additional domestic power @ Rs 2/-

per unit= 114x2

Rs 228 cr

Revenue surplus after meeting the 9 hrs supply to

Agricultue and24 hr supply to domestic sector (3049-

1528+228)

Rs 1749 cr

Thus there would have been revenue surplus to the tune of Rs 1749 cr even

after meeting the requirements of Agriculture and Domestic sectors.

*****

ANNEXURE

Annexure-1

Annexure-2

Annexure-3

Annexure-4

Annexure-5

Annexure-6

Annexure - 7

Sl. No. Name of the Company Region

1 M/s Aditya Transmissions Limited, Hyderabad. Rayalaseema

2 M/s Amrutha Constructions, Hyderabad. Telengana

3 M/s Annapurna Constructions and Transmissions, Hyderabad. Andhra

4 M/s Avinash Constructions, Secunderabad Andhra

5 M/s Bhavani Electricals, Hyderabad. Andhra

6 M/s Bindu Constructions, Hyderabad. Telengana

7 M/s Bodapati Control Systems Pvt.Ltd, Hyderabad Andhra

8 M/s Dura Fabs, Hyderabad Andhra

9 M/s EN EN Electrical Engineer pvt.Ltd., Anantapur. Rayalaseema

10 M/s Heavy engineering Company, Ongole Andhra

11 M/s Hyderabad Power Installations Pvt.ltd., Hyderabad Rayalaseema

12 M/s K.Nageswara Rao, Hyderabad. Andhra

13 M/s K.Ramachandra Rao, Hyderabad. Andhra

14 M/s K.V. Sridhar, Nellore Andhra

15 M/s Kesavulu Reddy, Hyderabad Rayalaseema

16 M/s Kireetendranath Reddy, Hyderabad. Rayalaseema

17 M/s Lakshmi Engineering Compaany, Hyderabad. Andhra

18 M/s Laxmi Transmissions, Nizamabad. Telangana

19 M/s M.Surendrababu, Visakhapatnam Andhra

20 M/s Mahalakshmi Industries, Hyderabad. Andhra

21 M/s MEC Engineering Company, Hyderabad. Telangana

22 M/s N. Nagaiah & Co., Hyderabad. Rayalaseema

23 M/s Nitin Sai Constructions, Hyderabad. Andhra

25 M/s R. Eswar Reddy, Hyderabad. Rayalaseema

26 M/s SECO Engineering Company, Tanuku. Andhra

27 M/s Silpha Electrification, Hyderabad Andhra

28 M/s Sree Geetanjali Constructions & Transmission, Hyderabad. Rayalaseema

29 M/s Sriman Constructions, Rajolu Andhra

30 M/s Uday Constructions, Kurnool Rayalaseema

31 M/s Venkateswara Fabricators, Hyderabad Andhra

33 M/s Vertex Constructions, Hyderabad Andhra

32 M/s Vertex Engineers, Hyderabad Andhra

34 M/s Vijaya Transmission Construction, Hyderabad. Andhra

24 M/s. Narasa Reddy Rayalaseema

25 M/s. Varigate, Hyderabad Rayalaseema

26 M/s. Balaji Constructions, Hyderabad Andhra

27 M/s. Lanco Infratech, Hyderabad Andhra

28 M/s. D J Constructions, Nizamabad Telangana

29 M/s. MVR Constructions, Hyderabad Rayalaseema

30 M/s. Coastal Projects Ltd., Hyderabad Andhra

Annexure-8

Region-wise Installed Capacity of Power Stations (MW) as on 31.01.2010

Sector Station Capacity Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema

Sta

te

Sec

tor Dr.NTTPS, Vijayawada 1260.00 1260.00

Dr.NTTPS, Vijayawada Stg-IV 500.00 500.00

Rayalaseema Stg-I & Stg-II 840.00 840.00

Kothagudem ABC 720.00 720.00

Kothagudem Stg-V 500.00 500.00

Ramagundam B 62.50 62.50

Total Thermal 3882.50 1282.50 1760.00 840.00

Total Thermal 3882.50 1282.50 1760.00 840.00

Machkund (AP) 84.00 84.00

Tungabhadra (AP) 57.60 57.60

Upper Sileru 240.00 240.00

Donkarayi 25.00 25.00

Lower Sileru 460.00 460.00

Priyadarshini Jurala 117.00 117.00

Srisailam Right 770.00 770.00

Srisailam Left 900.00 900.00

Nagarjunasagar 815.60 815.60

NS Right Canal 90.00 90.00

NS Left Canal 60.00 60.00

Pochampad 27.00 27.00

Nizamsagar 10.00 10.00

Penna Ahobilam 20.00 20.00

Singur 15.00 15.00

Mini Hydro 12.16 11.16 1.00

Total Hydro 3703.36 2415.76 440.00 847.60

Total Hydro 3703.36 2415.76 440.00 847.60

Wind 2.00 2.00

Total APGENCO 7587.86 3698.26 2200.00 1689.60

Join

t S

ecto

r Vijjeswaram 272.00 272.00

Total Joint Sector 272.00 0.00 272.00 0.00

Cen

tral

Sec

tor

NTPC Ramagundam (2600 MW) 913.46 913.46

NTPC Simhadri (1000 MW) 1000.00 1000.00

NTPC Talcher Kaniha-II (2000 MW) 434.07 434.07

NLC 2MC (630 + 840 MW) 344.10 344.10

Madras APS (440 MW) 46.84 46.84

Kaiga APS (660 MW) 225.01 225.01

Unallocated from ER (3440 MW) 85.06 85.06

Total Central Sector 3048.54 913.46 1910.07 225.01

Pri

vate

Se

cto

r

GVK/Jegurupadu 436.82 436.82

Spectrum/Kakinada 208.31 208.31

Lanco/Kondapalli 351.49 351.49

REL/Peddapuram 220.00 220.00

GMR/Vemagiri 370.00 370.00

Gautami 464.00 464.00

Konaseema 286.08 286.08

Wind 101.34 101.34

Mini Hydro 104.40 9.95 63.05 31.40

Waste Heat Recovery (RCL) 41.00 41.00

Bagasse based Co-generation 174.45 73.95 69.50 31.00

Biomass based Co-generation 29.25 29.25

Biomass based Power Projects 190.50 58.00 91.00 41.50

Municipal/Industrial Waste based 34.26 10.10 24.16

Mini Power Plants 74.31 74.31

Isolated Gas wells 27.04 27.04

Total Private Sector 3113.25 152.00 2756.01 205.24

Total AP 14021.65 4763.72 7138.08 2119.85

Percentage Share (%) 100.00 149.84 44.50

Projects Under Construction / Development

Sector Station Capacity Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema

Sta

te S

ecto

r

Rayalaseema Stg-III & Stg- IV 810.00 810.00

Kakatiya Stg-I & Stg-II 1100.00 1100.00

Kothagudem Stg-VI 500.00 500.00

Krishnapatnam 1600.00 1600.00

IGCC Plant at Vijayawada 182.00 182.00

Mega Power Project at Vadarevu 4000.00 4000.00

Sattupally TPS 600.00 600.00

Power Project at Srikakulam 2400.00 2400.00

Nuclear Plant at Pulivendula 2000.00 2000.00

Gas based Project at Karimnagar 2100.00 2100.00

Total Thermal 15292.00 4300.00 8182.00 2810.00

Priyadarshini Jurala (balance 3 Units) 117.00 117.00

Lower Jurala 240.00 240.00

NS Tailpond dam PH 50.00 50.00

Pulichintala 120.00 120.00

Pochampad (Unit 4) 9.00 9.00

Polavaram 960.00 0.00 960.00

Dummugudem (Proposed capacity) 320.00 320.00

Kanthanapalli (Proposed capacity) 450.00 450.00

Total Hydro 2266.00 1136.00 1130.00 0.00

Total APGENCO 17558.00 5436.00 9312.00 2810.00

Cen

tral

Sec

tor

NTPC Simhadri (1000 MW) 336.00 336.00

Vallur JV Unit 3 (500 MW) 75.00 75.00

Tuticorin JV (1800 MW) 250.00 250.00

North Chennai (1200 MW) 120.00 120.00

Jayamkondam JV 500.00 500.00

Total Central Sector 1281.00 0.00 1281.00 0.00

Pri

vate

Se

cto

r

Konaseema 165.00 165.00

BPL Ramagundam 500.00 500.00

Ultra Mega Project at Krishnapatnam 4000.00 4000.00

Total Private Sector 4665.00 500.00 4165.00 0.00

Total AP 23504.00 5936.00 14758.00 2810.00


Total Installed Capacity and Projects Under Construction / Development

S.No. Particulars Capacity Telangana Andhra Rayalaseema

1 Installed Capacity 14021.65 4763.72 7138.08 2119.85

2 Under Construction / Proposed 23504.00 5936.00 14758.00 2810.00

3 Grand Total 37525.65 10699.72 21896.08 4929.85


Annexure-9

Maximum Demand Recorded on 05.03.10

Andhra MD

Srikakulam 148

V.Nagaram 169

Vizag 403

E.Godavary 343

W.Godavary 501

Krishna 419

Guntur 496

Prakasam 249

Nellore 304

Chittoor 646

Cuddapah 477

Ananthapur 601

Kurnool 335

Andhra Total 5091

Telangana

M.Nagar 739

Nalgonda 701

Medak 693

Rangareddy 807

Hyderabad 965

Khammam 289

Warangal 282

K.Nagar 378

Nizamabad 343

Adilabad 284

Telangana TOTAL 5481

Gross total 10572

Annexure-10

Annexure-11

Annexure-12

Annexure-13

Chairmen of APSEB during 1959-1999

S. No. Name Region From To

1 R Prasad ICS A 01-04-59 02-05-61

2 S.A.Quadar A 03-05-61 31-03-63

3 JV Narsing Rao T 01-04-63 25-12-66

4 C Narasimham T 26-12-66 17-01-70

5 A KrishnaswamyIAS Out of AP 18-01-70 13-12-71

6 KV Sreenivasa Rao T 16-12-71 31-01-74

7 N Tata Rao A 15-08-74 21-04-88

8 TL Shankar Out of AP 22-04-88 16-04-90

9 SK Bhandarkar Out of AP 17-04-90 04-05-90

10 VV Reddy A 05-05-90 30-04-92

11 RV Krishnan Out of AP 30-04-92 08-05-92

12 K Balaram Reddy A 09-05-92 08-05-95

13 J parthasarathy A 12-05-95 31-03-99

T – Telangana; A – Andhra; O-Out of AP; Un - Unknown

Annexure-14


S. No. Name Designation Region From To

1

C Damodar Reddy, IAS,

Sec to Govt, Finance Dept Member A 01-04-59 31-03-60

2

R Prasad, ICS, Sec to Govt.,

PWD Chairman A 01-04-59 02-05-61

3 V Pappu, CE Elecy Board Member A 01-04-59 31-03-61

4 SA Quader, CE, Elecy, Proj Member A 01-04-59 31-03-61

5 T Anantababu SLA A 01-04-60 31-03-73

6 M.A.Abbasi Member T 01-04-60 31-03-61

7 B Gopala KrishnaiahSecretary to Board A 01-04-61 30-06-63

8 SA Quader, CE, Elecy, Proj Chairman A 03-05-61 31-03-63

9 S Natarajan FA T 01-12-61 31-03-64

18 J V Narsing Rao Chairman T 01-04-63 25-12-66

10 M Venkataratnam, IASSecretary to Board T 01-07-63 23-06-66

11 N Subba Rao AS/Works A 20-09-63 31-03-71

12 K Kesava Rao AS/Adm A 09-11-63 31-03-67

13 CN Subba Rao AS A 01-04-64 31-03-65

14 KS Rangamurthy, IAS FA O 01-04-64 31-03-65

15 G Narasimha Das AS 01-04-64 31-03-65

16 T.N.Viswanadha Reddy Member A 01-04-65 31-03-66

17 A.Krishna swamy Member O 01-04-65 31-03-66

19 T.N.Viswanadha Reddy Member A 01-04-66 16-12-66

20 Chidambar Reddy Member A 01-04-66 31-03-67

21 T.G.V.Naidu Member A 01-04-66 31-03-67

22 T.Viswanatham Member A 01-04-66 31-03-67

23 G Narasimha Das AS 01-04-66 31-03-69

24 S.Satyanarayana FA 01-04-66 27-04-67

25 S.Sundara Ramaiah Member A 01-04-66 31-03-67

26 V.Subba Rao Member A 01-04-66 31-03-67

27 G Suryanarayana Raju AS A 16-06-66 31-03-71

28 D.Sankaraguruswamy Secretary O 24-06-66 30-11-68

29 S Vitaleswar Rao PRO A 20-07-66 31-03-73

30 G.Venkateswarlu AS A 01-08-66 12-03-67

31 J V Narsing RaoSec to Govt,, PWD T 26-12-66 25-12-69

32 C.Narasimham Chairman A 26-12-66 17-01-70

34 R.RajagopalanFinancial Adviser O 28-04-67 31-03-69

35 Y.Sivasankara Reddy PO A 25-06-67 10-11-67

36 V Pattabhi Ramayya AS A 25-09-67 31-03-71

37 Vijayarangam Vig 09-10-67 31-03-68

38 S.A.M.Moosvi PO 08-12-67 31-03-68

39 C Venkatadri Reddy DSP Vig A 01-01-68 31-03-71

40 K.Satyanaranarao Joint secretary A 15-05-68 31-03-69

41 Tilji RajChf Sec & Vig Off O 29-05-68 24-02-72

42 R M Sasthry IAS Secretary A 01-12-68 27-06-71

43 S.A.M.Moosvi Dir IR 08-12-68 20-12-68

44 K.A Ansari Dir IR T 11-01-69 03-08-71

45 K Satyanarayana Rao Jt Sec A 01-04-69 10-02-70

46 K Sreeramachanra Murthy AE DPE A 01-04-69 31-03-71

47 K Venugopala Rao AS A 01-04-69 31-03-71

48 G Ramachandran IA&AS M/Acts O 26-05-69 30-04-73

49 V Venkata Narasimha Rao DSP A 16-06-69 31-03-71

50 B L GangopadhyaySec to Govt,, PWD O 26-12-69 17-01-70

51 A Krishna Swamy, IAS Chairman O 18-01-70 13-12-71

53 S Satyanarayana Spl Off A 01-02-70 31-03-71

54 B Ranganath Rao Jt Sec A 01-04-70 31-03-73

55 A Ramachandra Rao Tech Expert A 09-02-71 31-03-73

56 K Umapathy Sec T 01-04-71 31-03-73

57 J Vishwanath Reddy D/IR A 29-09-71 07-03-73

58 K V Sreenivasa Rao Chairman A 16-12-71 31-01-74

59 K V Sreenivasa RaoSec to Govt,, PWD A 16-12-71 31-01-74

60 N Radhakrishna MurthyChf Sec & Vig Off A 01-04-72 31-03-73

61 D.Sankaraguruswamy Member O 01-04-73 30-04-74

62 D Rama Rao Member /Tech A 13-11-73 05-04-76

63 B L GangopadhyaySec to Govt,, PWD O 01-02-74 04-05-74

64 A Krishna Swamy, IAS First Mem Bd of O 05-05-74 15-08-74

65 K.R.Ayyar Member O 01-07-74 31-03-75

66 N Tata Rao Chairman A 15-08-74 21-04-88

67 G Shankara GuruswamyEx Officio Member O 01-04-75 31-03-76

68 P S KrishnaEx Officio Member O 01-04-75 01-01-76

69 K UmaPathy Member T 01-04-75 06-08-75

70 K R Ayyar M/Acts O 01-04-75 31-12-77

71 M Gopala KrishnanEx Officio Member O 01-04-75 31-03-76

72 M B Balaraj Member A 06-08-75 31-03-76

73 K Jayabharath ReddyEx Officio Member A 23-01-76 31-03-77

74 K V NatarajanEx Officio Member O 11-03-76 16-09-77

75 B Rathan Sabhapathi Member A 01-04-76 31-03-77

76 G Eshwar Member T 01-04-76 31-03-77

77 M B Balaraj Member A 01-04-76 27-09-77

78 M Gopala KrishnanEx officio Member O 01-04-76 31-03-77

79 C Ramachandra Rao M/Tech-I A 05-04-76 11-05-77

80 K Jayabharath Reddy Dir of Industries A 01-04-77 11-05-77

81 M Gopala KrishnanSec to Govt/Irr&Powwer O 01-04-77 31-03-78

82 Y Sreeramulu M/Tech-II A 12-05-77 31-03-78

83 M S Veera Raghuram FA&CCA/Proj A 17-09-77 01-06-78

84 E.A.S.Sarma M/Sec A 28-09-77 02-04-79

85 C Partha Sarathy M/Acts T 01-01-78 15-01-83

86 Ramachandra Rao M/Tech-I A 01-04-78 31-03-79

87 Y Sreeramulu M/Tech-II A 01-04-78 31-03-79

88 M Gopala KrishnanSec to Govt/Irrn & Power O 01-04-78 06-12-78

89 N Raghava Ex Officio Member A 01-06-78 04-12-78

90 C N ShastrySec to Govt/Irrn & Power A 06-12-78 26-12-78

91 S V Subrahmanyam Ex Officio 16-12-78 31-03-79

Member

92 B K RaoEx Officio Member A 27-12-78 01-06-79

93 C Ramachandra Rao Member A 01-04-79 16-01-81

94 Y Sreeramulu Member A 01-04-79 31-03-80

95 S.V.Subramanyam Member 01-04-79 11-05-79

96 C.R.Kamalanatham Member A 02-04-79 23-02-80

97 T L Shankar Member O 11-05-79 31-03-80

98 C S Sasthry Member 05-06-79 05-01-81

99 K.R.Venugopal Member A 01-09-79 31-10-79

100 Y SreeramuluEx Officio Membeer A 01-04-80 20-05-80

101 T L ShankarEx Officio Membeer O 01-04-80 24-11-80

102 N Radhakrishna Murthy Sec A 19-04-80 30-08-84

103 B Prathap ReddyEx Officio Membeer A 24-11-80 31-03-81

104 B N RamanaEx Officio Membeer A 05-01-81 31-03-81

105 I Basava RajuEx Officio Membeer T 17-01-81 31-03-81

106 J A MurraeEx Officio Membeer T 17-01-81 15-01-83

107 I Basava Raju M/Tech-II A 01-04-82 15-01-83

108 J Partha Sarathy M/Gen A 27-06-83 05-05-88

109 T Sugunakar Rao M/RE&MM A 27-06-83 05-05-88

110 C K Reddy M/T&D T 28-06-83 15-01-88

111 K N Murthy M/Acts A 20-07-83 31-03-86

112 P K Dorai Swamy Member O 01-04-84 07-09-84

113 B V Rama Rao Member A 31-08-84 28-02-87

114 V V Reddy M/Tech A 08-09-84 05-05-88

115 C. K. Reddy Member/ T&D A 01-04-86 31-03-87

116 J. Sugunakara RaoMember/ RE&MM A 01-04-86 31-03-87

117 K. N .Murthy Member/ Accts A 01-04-86 31-03-87

118 K Jayabharath Reddy Member/ Sec A 01-03-87 08-05-87

119 J K Sharma M/Acts O 19-05-87 08-05-95

120 K Swaminadhan M/Sec O 17-07-87 26-05-88

121 T L Shankar Chairman O 22-04-88 16-04-90

122 M Venkateshwarlu M/RE&D A 06-05-88 04-05-92

123 R Dasarathi Reddy M/D T 06-05-88 31-03-89

124 K Balarami Reddy M/Tr A 06-05-88 04-05-92

125 V Rama Rao M/Gen A 06-05-88 04-05-92

126 Sheila Binde M/Sec O 11-07-88 31-08-88

127 J Harinarayana M/Sec O 28-09-88 31-03-90

128 J. K. Sarma M/Acts O 01-04-89 31-03-95

129 APVN Sharma M/Sec O 04-11-89 13-07-92

130 S Santhanam Prl Sec/Perm Invitee O 01-04-90 04-05-90

131 S K BhandarkarPrl Sec/Perm Invitee O 01-04-90 04-05-90

132 S K Bhandarkar Chairman O 17-04-90 04-05-90

133 V V Reddy Chairman A 05-05-90 30-04-92

134 A. P. V. N. Sarma Member O 01-04-91 31-03-92

135 K. Balarama Reddy Member A 01-04-91 31-03-92

136 R. V Krishnan Chairman O 30-04-92 08-05-92

137 J V Pandurangam M/D&Re T 09-05-92 08-05-95

138 K Balarami Reddy Chairman A 09-05-92 08-05-95

139 V Venkata Swamy M/Gen A 09-05-92 08-05-95

140 H. S. Brahma M/Sec O 13-07-92 27-01-95

141 M. N. Paul M/Proj A 25-07-92 08-05-95

142 B Narasimhulu M/Tr T 26-07-92 08-05-95

143 B Venkata Swamy M/Gen A 01-04-93 31-03-94

144 K. Venakata SwamyMember/ Generation A 01-04-94 31-03-95

145 M S Hariharan Member/ Sec O 27-01-95 19-08-95

146 A V Krishna Rao M/D&RE A 11-05-95 31-03-96

147 J Partha Sarathy Chairman A 12-05-95 31-01-99

148 A B Subba Rao M/Proj A 24-05-95 31-03-96

149 Y Venugopala Rao M/Trnsmsn A 14-07-95 31-03-96

150 M K Ganesham M/Acts O 14-07-95 31-03-96

151 C Subba Raidu M/Gen A 09-08-95 31-01-99

152 A K Kutty M/Secr O 21-08-95 31-01-99

153 AV Subba Rao M/Proj A 01-04-96 31-01-99

154 K. Y. Venugoplala RaoMember/ transmission A 01-04-96 31-01-99

155 M. V. Krishna Rao M/D&RE A 01-04-96 31-01-99

156 S Chandrasekharan M/Acts O 15-04-96 31-03-97

157 S Chandrasekharan M/Acts O 15-04-97 31-03-98

158 S. Chandrasekharan Member/ Accts O 01-04-98 14-04-98

159 D Prabhakar Rao D/F T 15-04-98 31-03-00

160 A K Kutty Dir O 01-02-99 04-05-99

161 J Partha Sarathy Director A 01-02-99 31-03-99

162 V S Sampath Director O 01-02-99 31-03-99


Annexure-15

Directors during 1999-10

S. No. Name Designation CPDCLorp/CPDCLo.Region From To

1 P.M.K.Gandhi MD CPDCL A 01-04-00 05-07-01

2 A.K.Kutty Chairman CPDCL O 01-04-00 10-10-00

3 P.Ramakanth reddy Chairman CPDCL T 11-10-00 09-04-02

4 Suryaprakash Rao Directors(Commercial) CPDCL A 26-05-01 13-06-03

5 T.V.S.N.Prasad MD CPDCL A 05-07-01 30-06-03

6 A.Raghavendra Rao Ditector CPDCL A 16-08-01 08-09-03

7 C.Rama Mohan Rao Dir (HR & Comml) CPDCL T 16-08-01 28-06-05

8 C. Srinivasa Rao Dir (Fin, IT & RA) CPDCL T 27-02-02 27-02-06

9 J.V.Pandurangam NWHTD CPDCL T 03-12-02 31-03-06

10 Dinesh Kumar NWHTD CPDCL O 01-04-03 27-06-03

11 A.Venkateshwar NWHTD CPDCL A 27-06-03 29-10-03

12 Dinesh Kumar, IAS CMD CPDCL O 30-06-03 01-08-04

13 KH Gulam Ahmed Dir (HR & P & MM) CPDCL A 17-07-03 31-03-10

14 G.Vinaya Kumar Dir (Operation) CPDCL A 30-09-03 25-09-05

15 M. Malakondaiah IPS NWHTD CPDCL A 29-10-03 31-03-06

16 Heeralal Samariya, IAS CMD CPDCL O 01-08-04 29-04-06

17 A.Srinivasa Rao Dir (Projects & Comml) CPDCL A 27-06-05 31-03-10

18 B.Ravindra Reddy Dir (Operation) CPDCL A 28-09-05 31-03-10

19 G.Sai Prasad, IAS CMD CPDCL A 25-05-06 15-02-10

20 Harish Kumar NWHTD CPDCL O 13-06-06 31-03-08

21 P.Rajagopal Reddy Dir (Finance & IT) CPDCL A 22-07-06 31-03-10

22 M. Gopal Rao NWHTD CPDCL A 07-10-06 31-03-10

23 K.Vijayanand, IAS NWHTD CPDCL A 31-03-08 31-03-10

24 B.Veera Reddy Dir ( Rurals,IR &RA) CPDCL A 29-11-08 31-03-10

25 Ch. Chenna Reddy NWHTD CPDCL T 09-01-09 31-03-10

26 G.Raghuma Reddy Ditector(commercial)-C CPDCL T 29-01-10 31-03-10

27 M.T.Krishna Babu IAS CMD CPDCL A 15-02-10 31-03-10

28 Y.Gopala Krishna Murthy MD/ CMD EPDCL A 01-04-00 01-04-05

29 G.Ganga Reddy Director EPDCL A 05-07-01 23-05-02

30 K.Bhaskar Rao Director EPDCL A 05-07-01 23-05-02

31 A.K.Ghosh Dir (Finance &HRD) EPDCL O 09-04-02 31-03-07

32 A.Kodanda Ramaiah Dir (Operations) EPDCL A 27-05-02 01-07-07

33 NVSK Sriram Dir (Projects) EPDCL A 27-05-02 30-06-05

34 Gajula Keshava Rao NWHTD EPDCL A 03-12-02 31-03-06

35 K.Durga Prasad NWHTD EPDCL A 01-04-03 29-10-03

36 G.Sai Prasad NWHTD EPDCL A 30-10-03 31-03-04

37 G.Sai Prasad, IAS CMD EPDCL A 13-08-04 31-03-06

38 A.Venkateshwar NWHTD EPDCL A 28-08-04 24-09-04

39 Dinesh Kumar, IAS NWHTD EPDCL O 24-09-04 31-03-06

40 C.Sudhakar Reddy Dir (Projects) EPDCL A 02-07-05 31-03-08

41 Harish Kumar, IAS NWHTD EPDCL O 15-05-06 31-03-07

42 Praveen Prakash CMD EPDCL O 24-05-06 04-06-07

43 Harish Kumar, IASJMD/APTRANSCO and NWHTD

EPDCL O 13-06-06 31-03-08

44 K.Gopala Krishna. NWHTD EPDCL A 14-11-06 31-03-08

45 A.Kodanda Ramaiah CMD (i/c) EPDCL A 04-06-07 10-06-07

46 Lav Agarwal CMD EPDCL O 10-06-07 31-03-08

47 V.Suryanarayana Dir (Operations) EPDCL A 30-06-07 31-03-09

48 K.Vijayanand, IAS NWHTD EPDCL A 31-03-08 31-03-09

49 N.Gulzar, IAS CMD EPDCL O 02-04-08 31-03-09

50 H.Y.Dora Dir (Proj and Comml.) EPDCL O 01-05-08 31-03-09

51 Y.Narayana Dir (RA) EPDCL A 29-11-08 31-03-09

52 B.Umakar Rao NWHTD EPDCL T 09-01-09 31-03-09

53 V.Krishna Murthy Dir ( Planning) EPDCL A 10-02-09 31-03-09

54 J Parthasarathy CMD APGENCO A 01-02-99 15-07-04

55 SM Yousuf Ali D(F)-G APGENCO A 01-02-99 17-10-04

56 Bh Satyanarayana Murthy D(H)-G APGENCO A 01-02-99 15-07-04

57 T Sambasiva Rao D(Th)-G APGENCO A 01-02-99 17-10-04

58 K Venkatarama Reddy D(Tech)-G APGENCO T 01-02-99 16-07-05

59 G Adiseshu D(H)-G APGENCO A 16-07-04 31-01-10

60 U G Krishna Murthy D(Tech)-G APGENCO A 16-07-04 31-01-10

61 Ajay Jain MD APGENCO O 05-08-04 10-07-09

62 MVV Rao D(Proj)-G APGENCO A 18-10-04 15-10-07

63 Vijaya Kumar D(Th)-G APGENCO A 18-10-04 01-04-08

64 D Prabhakar Rao D(F)-G APGENCO T 18-10-04 31-01-10

65 VV Rao D(Comml)-G APGENCO A 15-11-04 31-03-08

66 G Vamana Rao D(HR)-G APGENCO T 16-08-07 31-01-10

67 C Radhakrishna D(Proj)-G APGENCO T 01-05-08 31-01-10

68 K Vijayanand MD APGENCO A 10-07-09 31-01-10

69 N.Biksham MD NPDCL T 01-04-00 23-05-02

70 Ch. Narasimha Murthy Dir (Projects) NPDCL A 26-05-01 29-11-05

71 P.Gopal Reddy Ditector NPDCL A 05-07-01 23-05-02

72 P.M.K. Gandhi NWHTD NPDCL A 04-05-02 31-03-07

73 P.Gopal Reddy CMD NPDCL A 23-05-02 11-08-05

74 D.Rukma Rao Director NPDCL T 23-05-02 30-11-04

75 N.V.S.Reddy ED(Fin)/Director(Fin) NPDCL A 20-07-02 03-12-03

76 K.Durga Prasad NWHTD NPDCL A 01-04-03 29-10-03

77 M. Malakondaiah IPS NWHTD NPDCL A 29-10-03 16-09-08

78 P.R.Reddy Dir (Finance) NPDCL A 15-06-04 03-08-06

79 Ch. Narasimha Reddy Dir (Operation) NPDCL T 30-11-04 30-11-08

80 K. Ranganatham CMD NPDCL A 15-08-05 07-06-06

81 K. Rajeshwara Rao Dir (Projects) NPDCL T 14-12-05 13-02-09

82 P.Ganapathi Dir (P&MM &Q.C) NPDCL T 01-05-06 31-03-09

83 V.Anil Kumar I.A.S CMD NPDCL T 12-07-06 05-11-08

84 K.Gopala Krishna NWHTD NPDCL T 07-10-06 09-01-09

85 Umesh Sharraf I.P.S NWHTD NPDCL O 16-09-08 31-03-09

86 Ch. Narasimha Reddy CMD NPDCL T 01-12-08 31-03-09

87 C.S. Sundara Murthy Dir (Finance) NPDCL A 12-02-09 31-03-09

88 B.Venkateswar Rao Dir (HRD) NPDCL T 26-02-09 31-03-09

89 T.Chandra Sekhar Dir (Projects) NPDCL T 07-03-09 31-03-09

90 K.Ranganatham CMD SPDCL A 30-03-00 11-08-05

91 A.K.Kutty Chairman SPDCL O 01-04-00 10-10-00

92 P.Ramakanth reddy Chairman SPDCL T 11-10-00 09-04-02

93 D.Pattabhi Director SPDCL A 05-07-01 23-05-02

94 P.Chakravarthy Director SPDCL A 05-07-01 23-05-02

95 D.Seetaramiah Director SPDCL A 23-05-02 31-03-05

96 K.Ramaswamy Director SPDCL A 23-05-02 07-09-04

97 H.Vidyasankar ED(Fin) SPDCL A 20-07-02 16-12-02

98 H.Vidyasankar Director(Fin) SPDCL A 16-12-02 31-01-04

99 P.M.K. Gandhi NWHTD SPDCL A 17-12-02 07-10-06

100 A.Venkateshwar NWHTD SPDCL A 31-12-02 24-09-04

101 K.P.Anand, IAAS Dir (Finance) SPDCL A 12-02-04 24-02-07

102 Dinesh Kumar, IAS NWHTD SPDCL O 24-09-04 13-06-06

103 Y.Padmanabha Reddy Dir (Comml. & Projects) SPDCL A 05-01-05 31-03-10

104 T.H.N.S.Damodara Rao Dir (Purchases) SPDCL A 05-01-05 31-03-10

105 P.Gopal Reddy CMD SPDCL A 12-08-05 31-03-10

106 V.Krishna Murthy Dir (RAC) SPDCL A 15-12-05 31-03-10

107 Harish Kumar, IAS NWHTD SPDCL O 13-06-06 07-10-06

108 M. Malakondaiah IPS NWHTD SPDCL A 07-10-06 31-03-10

109 M.Gopal Rao NWHTD SPDCL A 07-10-06 31-03-10

110 Shaik Anwar Dir (HRD) SPDCL A 29-03-07 31-03-10

111 A.Venkata Reddy IRAS Dir (Finance) SPDCL A 20-08-07 31-03-10

112 P.Anjaiah Dir (HRD & Operation) SPDCL A 01-05-08 31-03-10

113 K.Rami Reddy Dir (Energy Audit) SPDCL A 30-06-08 31-03-10

114Umesh Sharraf ,IPS JMD(V&S)

NWHTDSPDCL

O 16-09-08 31-03-10

115 S.Viswanatham Dir (RAC) SPDCL A 02-12-08 31-03-10

116

G.Rama Krishna Dir (Finance and Revenue)/APTRANSCO Reddy,

NWHTD

SPDCL

A 09-01-09 31-03-10

117 Z.Pillips Dir(Projects) SPDCL A 10-09-09 31-03-10

118 V.Rama Krishna Rao Dir(Commerial)-T APTRANSCO A 05-05-99 03-12-02

119 P.M.K. Gandhi Dir(Distribution(HRD))-T APTRANSCO A 05-05-99 20-07-00

120 K.Ranganadham Dir(Projects)-T APTRANSCO A 05-05-99 20-07-00

121 Y.Gopala Krishna Murthy Dir(Technical)-T APTRANSCO A 05-05-99 20-07-00

122 Bhanu Bhushan Dir(Operations)-T APTRANSCO O 05-05-99 03-12-02

123 N.Biksham Dir(Distribution(RE))-T APTRANSCO T 05-05-99 20-07-00

124 D.Prabhakar Rao Dir(Finance)-T APTRANSCO T 05-05-99 08-05-02

125 Gopalachary Dir(Transmission)-T APTRANSCO T 05-05-99 03-12-02

126 K.Durga Prasad JMD APTRANSCO A 23-06-00 16-10-03

127 K.Durga Prasad JMD(V & S) APTRANSCO A 23-06-00 31-03-01

128 Bhanwarlal JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO O 20-07-00 17-10-00

129 T.Ramesh Chandra Bose Dir(Projects)-T APTRANSCO A 26-09-00 03-12-02

130 M.V.S.Birinchi Dir(Technical)-T APTRANSCO O 26-09-00 03-12-02

131 P.Ramakanth Reddy CMD APTRANSCO T 10-10-00 20-06-02

132 T.V.S.N.Prasad JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO A 17-10-00 03-12-02

133 P.M.K. Gandhi Dir(commercial & APTRANSCO A 04-05-02 04-09-06

134 A.Venkateshwar (IRAS) Dir(Finanace)-T APTRANSCO A 08-05-02 11-09-04

135 Rachel Chatterjee CMD APTRANSCO O 20-06-02 28-03-08

136 Gajula Keshava Rao Dir(Transmission & APTRANSCO A 03-12-02 04-09-06

137 Dinesh Kumar, IAS JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO O 03-12-02 30-06-03

138 J.V.Pandurangham Dir(Projects)-T APTRANSCO T 03-12-02 04-09-06

139 J.Partha Sarathy Dir APTRANSCO A 01-04-03 31-03-05

140 V.S.Sampath NWHTD APTRANSCO O 01-04-03 18-08-03

141 G.Sai Prasad, IAS JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO A 30-06-03 26-08-04

142 Jannath Hussain NWHTD APTRANSCO A 19-08-03 07-07-04

143 M. Malakondaiah IPS JMD(V & S) APTRANSCO A 17-10-03 28-08-08

144 Preeti Sudan NWHTD APTRANSCO O 01-04-04 07-07-04

145 T.S.Appa Rao NWHTD APTRANSCO A 08-04-04 31-03-05

146 Deepak Kumar Panwar NWHTD APTRANSCO O 08-04-04 31-03-05

147 Dinesh Kumar, IAS JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO O 01-09-04 29-04-06

148 G.Ramakrishna Reddy Ditector(Finance)-T APTRANSCO A 01-07-05 31-03-10

149 Harish Kumar JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO O 29-04-06 23-03-08

151 M.Gopal Rao Dir(Transmission)-T APTRANSCO A 04-09-06 29-11-08

152 Vijayanand JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO A 23-03-08 10-07-09

153 Ajeya Kalam CMD APTRANSCO O 28-03-08 22-10-08

154 UMESH SHARRAF JMD(V & S) APTRANSCO O 28-08-08 31-03-10

155 Sutirtha Battacharya CMD APTRANSCO O 22-10-08 02-01-10

156 P.Srirama rao Dir(Grid operation)-T APTRANSCO A 30-11-08 31-03-09

157 B.Umakar Rao Dir(Projects)-T APTRANSCO T 30-11-08 31-03-10

158 Ch. Chenna Reddy Dir(Transmission)-T APTRANSCO T 30-11-08 31-03-10

159 Ajay Jain JMD(HRD) APTRANSCO O 10-07-09 01-01-10

160 Ajay Jain CMD APTRANSCO O 02-01-10 28-02-10

161 S.Ranganatham Addl.JMD APTRANSCO A 05-02-10 31-03-10


Annexure - 16

APGENCO HEAD QUARTERS EMPLOYEES

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

1 G INDIRA A D E T 95 K VENKATESWARA RAO P O T

2 B MAMATHA A D E T 96 R SURYAKANTH P O T

3 K HIMA A E T 97 M SREENIVASULU P O T

4 B MANJULA A E T 98 M RAJANARSIMHA P O T

5 V ARUDHRA E E T 99 K S SUBRAHMANAYAMRAJU S E T

6 P MADHAVI J P O T 100 B AJAY KUMAR TYPIST T

7 H B SUJATHA P O T 101 G VAMANARAO DIRECTOR(HR) T

8 G SWAROOPA RANI P O T 102 M NARASIMHA RAO J P O T

9 P PUSHPALATHA P O T 103 D RAVINDER J P O T

10 M INDIRA KUMARI TYPIST T 104 A SUDHAKAR P O T

11 P THIRUPATHAMMA Office Subordinate T 105 M JAYA PRAKASH GOUD P O T

12 P INDUMATHI P O T 106 DR I LAXMAREDDY A C S T

13 G MANJULARANI A C S T 107 RAMAKRISHNA PAWAR A C S T

14 K K D MALLESWARI A S T 108 CH JANARDHAN A E T

15 K RAJANI J P O T 109 P GOVIND RAOMUDIRAJ D S T

16 S LAXMI BAI Office Subordinate T 110 M SATAYANARAYANA Dy.C S T

17 A RANGAMMA Office Subordinate T 111 SYED ZAHEERUDDIN J P O T

18 P NAGAMANI Office Subordinate T 112 M RAMA KRISHNA J P O T

19 G UMA Office Subordinate T 113 P SAMUEL J P O T

20 B MANJULA RANI P O T 114 S LOHIT ANAND P O T

21 SD FARHATUNNISA SWEEPER T 115 V RAMA RAO P O T

22 M VATSALA J P O T 116 GULAMHUSSAIN P O T

23 B LAXMIBAI P O T 117 K VIDYAPATHIRAO P O T

24 M PADMANJANI A A O T 118 MD HAMEEDUDDIN P O T

25 M KAVITHA J A O T 119 M ANILKISHORE P O T

26 SABIHA BEGUM R A T 120 B NARASING RAO RONEO OP T

27 S VIJAYA LAKHMI S A O T 121 S OMPRAKASH A S T

28 A RADHARANI A A O T 122 G RAVINDER ASSISTANT T

29 G GRACE A O T 123 K VENKATESHWAARLU J P O T

30 K AROGYA RANI A O T 124 V NARASIMHA RAO J P O T

31 M RAMADEVI A O T 125 MD ASIF ALI OS T

32 K P GRACE DAMAYANTHI J A O T 126 MD KHAJA PASHA OS T

33 M BHAGYA LAXMI J A O T 127 K RAMBABU OS T

34 M SOUJANYA J A O T 128 Y GURUPRASAD OS T

35 CH VASUDHA L D C T 129 V MANI KUMAR OS T

36 B A MANGATAYARU U D C T 130 K RAJA SEKHAR OS T

37 T HEMALATHA U D C T 131 K SRINU OS T

38 D LAKSHMI U D C T 132 SK MOULANA OS T

39 T SHARADA A D E T 133 D S SUNDARA RAJU OS T

40 R KRANTHI KUMARI A E T 134 V VENKATARAMANA P O T

41 K S PADMALATHA A O T 135 SD ZIA UR REHMAN TYPIST T

42 T GODAVARI 23499728 A O T 136 P MD SAJID ALI KHAN ASSISTANT T

43 J MAMATHA J A O T 137 MD SHAMSUDDIN H C T

44 G MADHAVI A D E T 138 MD YOUSUF OS T

45 ANEES SULTANA BEGUM A E T 139 GOPAL OS T

46 JYOTHSNA CHITTY A E T 140 R BALABHASKAR RAO S S I T

47 N CHYTHANYA A E T 141 SK SIRAJUDDIN S S I T

48 S VANAJA RANI A E T 142 M LINGAM S S I T

49 A SUSHMA A E T 143 D PRABHAKAR RAO DIRECTOR T

50 N S MADHAVI A E T 144 N MD SUHALE J A O T

51 A ANNAPURNA A E T 145 A SRINIVAS J P O T

52 D DURGA BHAVANI A E T 146 V NARASIMHA OS T

53 M MALLESWARI Office Subordinate T 147 MD HAJRATH MADEENA VALLI OS T

54 D SHAKUNTALA Office Subordinate T 148 MD ANWAR OS T

55 K VIJAY SWETHI A E T 149 S SURESH OS T

56 K BHAVANI A E T 150 M SRINIVAS RAO A A O T

57 R SAISREE A E T 151 P SHEKAR REDDY A A O T

58 B VIJAYA LAXMI A E TRAINEE T 152 B ESHWARGOUD A A O T

59 G PRABHAVATHI A O T 153 A VENKATARAO J A O T

60 J RAJA LAKSHMI A E T 154 G SRINIVAS J A O T

61 J Kavitha JAO (?) T 155 B VENUGOPAL J A O T

62 B RADHA J P A T 156 K SAIDULU J A O T

63 G SHANTHI L D C T 157 SUBHAN SARTAJ UNNISA J P O T

64 L SUCHITRA 27563742 J A O T 158 CH VENKAIAH OS T

65 Anita J A O T 159 A LINGAIAH OS T

66 Sd ZAREENA BEGUM Office Subordinate A 160 MD YOUSUFUDDIN U D C T

67 B NAGAMANI Office Subordinate A 161 K M ZAHEERUDDIN U D C T

68 M GANGA BHAVANI Office Subordinate A 162 A DAYAKAR REDDY U D C T

69 Y LAXMI Office Subordinate A 163 B MUTYALU A A O T

70 E ANURADHA DYCCA A 164 PARMESWAR P A A O T

71 W R APARNA U D C A 165 SYED NASIR UL HAQ A A O T

72 CH ANURADHA L D C A 166 R BALAKRISHNA RAO A A O T

73 MD JOHNYMIYA ASSISTANT T 167 K SRINIVAS J A O T

74 B SATYANARAYANA J P O T 168 G DEVENDER J A O T

75 J MAHESH J P O T 169 M SAMPATH KUMAR J A O T

76 SD MUNEER ALI L M D T 170 K G RAMA KRISHNA J A O T

77 J SUDHAKAR Office Subordinate T 171 K VENKATESWARLU J A O T

78 INDRA BAHADUR Office Subordinate T 172 P DANIEL Office Subordinate T

79 M A SHAFIURREHAMAN Office Subordinate T 173 N SRINIVASA RAO Office Subordinate T

80 N VENKAIAH R A T 174 Sk AKBAR PASHA Office Subordinate T

81 K RAMESH A D E T 175 Ch RAMU TYPIST T

82 K MAHENDER RAO A D E T 176 V CHANDRA KUMAR U D C T

83 G VENKANNA A E T 177 M RAJU A D E T

84 P UMA SHANKER A E T 178 B RAVINDER A D E T

85 V KRISHNA PRASAD A O T 179 G VENKATAIAH A D E T

86 A RAMA RAO E D (IS) T 180 N SURESH KUMAR A E T

87 D NAVEEN VARMA J P A T 181 B KRISHNA KUMAR A A O T

88 T BHEEM SINGH J P O T 182 N SONIRAO A O T

89 P RAMULAMMA Office Subordinate T 183 S DURGA PRASAD J A O T

90 K DEVENDER REDDY A D E T 184 M EASHWARAIAH GOUD J A O T

91 A ASHOK KUMAR A E T 185 MD SAYEED Office Subordinate T

92 KHUTAIJA ASHRAF SALMA ASSISTANT T 186 G VEERESHAM A D E T

93 SYED FAHEEM ASSISTANT T 187 B GOPAL A D E T

94 D RATNAKAR J P O T 188 I SUMANTH REDDY A D E T

189 D VARAPRASAD RAO A D E T 285 S V SHYAM SUNDER A A O A

190 N SANTOSH A D E T 286 K K N SIVA PRASAD J A O A

191 C KISHORE A D E T 287 G Sridhar JAO A

192 VIDYASAGAR CH A D E T 288 A SIVAKUMAR S E A

193 P MOMIN PASHA A D E T 289 R VIJAYA KUMAR TYPIST A

194 S N S SHEKHAR A D E T 290 V S KARTHI A S A

195 K LAXMAN A D E T 291 M KRISHNA FMD Gr.IV A

196 T KRISHNA MURTHY A E T 292 K VIJAYANAND I A S M D A

197 K RAGHUPATHI REDDY A E T 293 D SATHYANARAYANASHARMA P S A

198 A BALANARAYANA A E T 294 P SREENIVASULU R A A

199 G SEKHAR A E T 295 C VIMALADEVI A A O A

200 O YASHODHAR RAJU A E T 296 G ADINARAYANA COM SEC A

201 P VENKATESWARLU A E T 297 C DHANAMJAI A D E A

202 VEGGALAM SRIDHAR A E T 298 J RAMESH BABU A D E A

203 B PUNNA A E T 299 K S B TRIPURA SUNDARI A D E A

204 B MURALIDHARARAO D E T 300 P RAVI KIRAN A D E A

205 G SRINIVASARAO D E T 301 P VINOD KUMAR A D E A

206 MD SAFIULLAH J P O T 302 C BALA SUBBANNA A E A

207 MD HIDAYATULLAH R A T 303 B VANAJA A E A

208 VENKAT GIRI R A T 304 A RADHIKA A E A

209 M HIMESH KUMAR S E T 305 B N PRABHAKAR D E A

210 P RAMESH BABU A A E T 306 P SAMBASIVAREDDY D E A

211 M MURALIDHAR RAO A D E T 307 S JABEERKHAN D E A

212 M UMAMAHESWARA CHARY A D E T 308 MD KHAJA MOHINUDDIN FM Gr.IV A

213 K RAJ KUMAR A D E T 309 B R B ANAND J P A A

214 K PRASANNA KUMAR A D E T 310 N SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A

215 SRINIVAS B 9493120157 A D E T 311 M KUMARA SWAMY P A A

216 G JAIRAJ NAIDU A D E T 312 S ANJUMANARA BEGUM SUB ENGINEER A

217 D VARAPRASAD A D E T 313 T PRABHAKAR RAO IRTS ED COAL A

218 B NAGESWARARAO A D E T 314 G RAVIKUMAR G M A

219 S RUKMA GOUD A D E T 315 M V RAMANI KUMARI A D E A

220 B PRASHANT A E T 316 A SUMITHRA A E A

221 A VENKATA RAMANA REDDY A E T 317 M KANAKAMAHA LAXMI A S A

222 VENUGOPAL A E T 318 P VIJAYABHASKARARAO A S A

223 D R SUBHASH CANDRA A E T 319 J VENKATA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT A

224 B RAMARAO A E T 320 V MADANA GOPAL ASSISTANT A

225 S RAVI A E T 321 CHVSRAMACHANDRAN CGM A

226 C MALLIKARJUNA RAO A E T 322 K CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO D E A

227 G SHANKAR Office Subordinate T 323 V USHA D S A

228 T RAMACHANDRAM Office Subordinate T 324 T SATYANARAYANA J P O A

229 A BALRAJ R A T 325 D SAVITHRI DIXIT J P O A

230 M SACHIDANANDAM S E T 326 G LALITHA J P O A

231 K KUTUMBA RAMAIAH Office Subordinate T 327 D V SYAMALA J P O A

232 E PRASAD Office Subordinate T 328 P BHARATH BHUSHAN J P O A

233 P LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY P O T 329 M SUSEELA J P O A

234 P NARAYAN NAIK A D E T 330 V ANJANEYULU J P O A

235 K RAVINDER REDDY A D E T 331 S R ARUNA J P O A

236 J SRINIVAS A D E T 332 S SURESHBABU J P O A

237 A VENKATA NARAYANA A D E T 333 M USHA P O A

238 M VENU A D E T 334 A J RATNA KUMARI P O A

239 K VENKATESWAREDDY A D E T 335 L NEELAKANTESWARA RAO A S A

240 N VENUGOPAL A D E T 336 S ASHOK KUMAR CGM A

241 M INDRADEEP A D E T 337 P S BHARGAVA DYLWO A

242 P S PRAVEEN KUMAR A D E T 338 N V S J MURALIDHAR J P O A

243 K PARAMESWARA CHARY A E T 339 T ASHOK J P O A

244 G RAVINDER RAO A E T 340 J SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A

245 R DHOOM SINGH A E T 341 G JAYAMANI P O A

246 CH VENKATARAJAM C E T 342 T V PADMAJA RANI P O A

247 M THIRUPATHIREDDY D E T 343 K ANILASANTHAKUMARI A C S A

248 D RAJU Office Subordinate T 344 V SUBBA RAO A S A

249 K PRATAP REDDY A E E T 345 A PADMAVATHI A S A

250 S S RATHOD J P O T 346 M UMA RANI A S A

251 SYED MOHEED Office Subordinate T 347 M RUPAVATHI A S A

252 J VENKATESWARLU Office Subordinate T 348 V ASHOK BABU ASSISTANT A

253 R VISWANATHAM P O T 349 P SRINIVAS ASSISTANT A

254 V Sreenivas TYPIST T 350 J PRIYADARSHINI ASSISTANT A

255 Y NAGESHWARA RAO E E T 351 D PRAKASH RAO CGM A

256 V SUDHEER A E T 352 B SHIVARAMREDDY D E A

257 T SHIVA PRASAD A E T 353 B V S N MURTHY J P O A

258 K SRINIVASA REDDY A E E T 354 M RAMAM J P O A

259 D SRIDHAR A E E T 355 Y VASANTHA KUMARI J P O A

260 D VEERANNA A E E T 356 M PADMAJA J P O A

261 T NARAYANA S E T 357 M RAMANJANEYA SARMA J P O A

262 M VISWANATH A E T 358 G GEETA Office Subordinate A

263 T NAVEEN KUMAR A E E T 359 M PRAVEENASRI Office Subordinate A

264 M SUKDEVPRASAD A E E T 360 B SATYNARAYANA P O A

265 E SRIDHAR E E T 361 M SYLENDRA KUMARI PHARMACIST A

266 K RAMA KRISHNA REDDY E E T 362 B LAVANYA R A A

267 D SUDERSHAN S E T 363 CH KANAKA DURGA R A A

268 D JAWAHARLAL J P O T 364 Sd SULEMAN R A A

269 R NARESH KUMAR Office Subordinate T 365 D V RAMAKRISHNA RONEO OP A

270 B SHIVA KUMAR E E T 366 MD FASIUDDIN FEROZ TYPIST A

271 G EKAMBRAM A E T 367 M PURINIMA A S A

272 SHAHEDA PARVEEN U D C T 368 VENKATA RAGHAVA SIRISHA ASSISTANT A

273 P SUDHAKAR FM GR-I T 369 T PADMAVATHI ASSISTANT A

274 K RAMAKRISHNA REDDY EE T 370 K LAKSHMI ASSISTANT A

275 G NARASIMHA REDDY A D E T 371 T VIJAYALAKSHMI D S A

276 P JAGADEESH P O T 372 V RAMESH J P O A

277 P Rohit OS T 373 G VENKATA LAKSHMI J P O A

278 M Ramesh OS T 374 J NALINI J P O A

279 B Veeraswamy OS T 375 S KONDAL RAO J P O A

280 K Rajashekhar OS T 376 V SATYANARAYANA J P O A

281 N SURENDRANATH P O T 377 M SUKUMAR J S A

282 N JAYASANKER A E T 378 M INDIRAKUMARI Office Subordinate A

283 G SHIVAJI RAO S E T 379 M SHANTHA Office Subordinate A

284 SHAIK SALEEM Office Subordinate A 380 O VENGALA REDDY Office Subordinate A

381 B RAVI KUMAR REDDY Office Subordinate A 477 P SARAT BABU A D E A

382 L SALAMMA Office Subordinate A 478 P S CHAKRAVARTHY A D E A

383 V MADDESWARA REDDY Office Subordinate A 479 H CHANDRA SEKHAR A D E A

384 CH YESU BABU Office Subordinate A 480 K VENKATA RAMANA REDDY A E A

385 T GOPAIAH Office Subordinate A 481 ZAIBUNNISA BEGUM A E A

386 P RAMANJANEYULU Office Subordinate A 482 K SRINIVASA RAO C E A

387 D SAMBASHIVA RAO Office Subordinate A 483 M S V SUBRAHMANAYAM D E A

388 R HYMAVATHI Office Subordinate A 484 MVENKATASURESH D E A

389 P RATNA KUMARI Office Subordinate A 485 K SARASWATHI OS A

390 K SHIVA KUMAR Office Subordinate A 486 D V S SOMESWARA RAO S A O A

391 T RANGA Office Subordinate A 487 CH NAGESWARA RAO S E A

392 N USHA RANI P O A 488 V KRISHNAIAH S E A

393 G SARASWATHAMMA P O A 489 K USHARANI TYPIST A

394 M V SATYANARAYANA P O A 490 V V RATNA KUMARI TYPIST A

395 G B N SASTRY P O A 491 K GANESH SINGH A A O A

396 A SUNDERKUMARDAS IPS CHIEF OF VIG SEC A 492 D SATISH A A O A

397 D NARASINGA RAO H C A 493 N MANJUNATHA RAO A O A

398 A SASHIKALA J P O A 494 P JAYARAJU A O A

399 K SWARNA DEVI J P O A 495 P NARASIMHACHARY DYCCA A

400 J VENKATARAMULU P C A 496 S SRINIVASARAO FA &CCA A

401 J KIRANKUMAR P C A 497 G YOGANAND J A O A

402 S SHYAMALA P O A 498 L V SATYANARAYANA J A O A

403 M A AZIZ S H G A 499 D JYOTHIRMAYEE J A O A

404 M NARASIMHA S H G A 500 N TULASIDAS S A O A

405 Y SEKHAR REDDY S H G A 501 U NAGARAJU S A O A

406 I M KHAN S H G A 502 C RAMALINGA REDDY D E A

407 J YADAGIRI S H G A 503 P NAGESH Office Subordinate A

408 G DARMA RAJ S H G A 504 P SATYASRINIVASU A D E A

409 G RATNAIAH S H G A 505 P PHANI KUMAR A D E A

410 B RADHA KRISHNA S H G A 506 R KALPANA KIRANMAYEE A D E A

411 P MADHAVA RAO S H G A 507 FURHANA A D E A

412 K SRINIVASA RAO S H G A 508 B GOPI KRISHNA A D E A

413 A SEETHA RAM REDDY S H G A 509 B SUNEETA A D E A

414 P PRABHAKER S H G A 510 Y V SATISH KUMAR A D E A

415 M BALRAJ S H G A 511 D MURALI KRISHNA A D E A

416 V GOVERDHAN S H G A 512 C SUREKHA A D E A

417 P BHUJANGA RAO S H G A 513 Z V GANESWARA RAO A D E A

418 A PRABHAKAR S I A 514 G V LAKSHMI A D E A

419 P RAMAKRISHNA S O A 515 T BHANU A D E A

420 CH NARASIMHARAO S S I A 516 E SRIDEVI A D E A

421 B YADAGIRI RAO S S I A 517 S PRIYADARSHINI A D E A

422 J JITHENDER S S I A 518 V KALPANA A D E A

423 M NARASIMHA S S I A 519 L RAJASEKHAR A D E A

424 M C V PRAKASA RAO S S I A 520 E RAGHURAMI REDDY A D E A

425 K KRISHNA SREE A S A 521 C SUDHARASANA REDDY A D E A

426 CH HARANATHA BABU DYCCA A 522 K SRINIVASA RAO A D E A

427 K SRINIVAS TYPIST A 523 A SUJATHA A E A

428 A ANANTALAXMI A A O A 524 M NAGAMANI A E A

429 S VENKATA RAMANAMMA A A O A 525 K EDUKONDALU A E A

430 V AMMANA RAJA A O A 526 J LALITHA KUMARI A E A

431 G V R VIJAYA LAKSHMI A O A 527 M RAVI A E A

432 B KRISHNA VENI A O A 528 K LAKSHMI SAYEE ASSISTANT A

433 M MOHANA RAO A O A 529 CH TIRUPATIRAYADU C E A

434 M B SARASWATHI A O A 530 P RAMAKRISHANA C E A

435 G ANANDA BABU A O A 531 K JAVAHAR D E A

436 M RAMESH BABU A O A 532 V V R GURUNATH D E A

437 S ABDULSATTAR A O A 533 G PRABHAKAR D E A

438 B S MOHANKUMAR FA &CCA A 534 P VENKATESWARA RAO D E A

439 A PENCHALA RATNAMU J A O A 535 G,KRISHNAMOHAN D E A

440 V SATYAVANI J A O A 536 DSSVSUBBARAO D E A

441 S ABDUL KHALIQ J A O A 537 M UMA DEVI D E A

442 T SATISH KUMAR J A O A 538 D LAKSHMI DEVI J P O A

443 P GEETHA VANI J A O A 539 S K HASSENMIYA Office Subordinate A

444 G SATHI RAJU S A O A 540 M SAMBASIVA RAO S E A

445 G V S R ANJANEYULU S A O A 541 E NAGESWARA RAO S E A

446 D ARAVINDA REDDY U D C A 542 M SUJAYA KUMAR S E A

447 P TULASI RANI U D C A 543 I KESAVAPRASAD S E A

448 SK KARIMULLAH U D C A 544 G VAMSEE MOHAN A D E A

449 R SUDHA RANI U D C A 545 M SRINIVAS A D E A

450 N SATYA KUMARI A A O A 546 T EDUKONDALU A D E A

451 B VEERA RAGHAVULU A A O A 547 CH RAMA KRISHNA A D E A

452 P MYTHILI A O A 548 B SRIDHAR A D E A

453 K SIVA RAMI REDDY A O A 549 M SRINIVASULU A D E A

454 A RAMESH BABU A O A 550 P SURESH KUMAR A D E A

455 M RAMESH A O A 551 B BHULAKSHMI A D E A

456 B PRABHUDASS DYCCA A 552 D VIJAYAKUMAR A D E A

457 B VENKATESULUREDDY FA &CCA A 553 G SRIDHAR A D E A

458 M RAMAKOTI J A O A 554 K LAKSHMI NARASIMHULU A D E A

459 VDLP RAMANA KUMARI J A O A 555 J DHARMAREDDY A D E A

460 G V S R BABJI J A O A 556 G SURESH BABU A D E A

461 G SREEDHAR J A O A 557 Y NAVEEN KUMAR A D E A

462 S KATAIAH J A O A 558 K VENKATESH A D E A

463 CH VIJAYA SREE J A O A 559 B SEKHAR BABU A D E A

464 V SATYANARAYANA J A O A 560 R ADARSHA KUMAR RAO A D E A

465 M SIRISHA RANI L D C A 561 CH SRINIVASA RAO A D E A

466 D RAVINDER Office Subordinate A 562 Y SRINIVAS A E A

467 I LAKSHMANA RAO PAY OFFICER A 563 N SHANTHALATHA A E A

468 V VIJAY KUMAR S A O A 564 B DHANALAKSHMI A E A

469 V SRINIVASA RAO S A O A 565 M VAMSI MOHAN A E A

470 P VENKTESWARA RAO S A O A 566 Y NAVEEN KUMAR A E A

471 S SREERANGNAYAKULU S A O A 567 V MARUTHI A E A

472 B NOOKESH U D C A 568 SYED ALTHAF UNNISA A E A

473 A RAVI KRISHNA U D C A 569 P DEEPTHI A E A

474 K SAROJA U D C A 570 S KIRANMAYEE A E A

475 Y NARASIMHA JAYANTH A A E A 571 K ASHA JYOTHI A E A

476 A SACHINDRA BABU A D E A 572 P PRAKASH C E A

573 A VENKATA KIRAN D E A 669 P THRIMURTHY A E A

574 A V SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAOD E A 670 L NANA BABU A E A

575 D SIMHACHALAM D E A 671 G SRINIVASA RAO A D E A

576 J RAGHAVENDRA RAO D E A 672 D PRAKASH A E A

577 CH SREENIVASA RAO D E A 673 R CHANDRA SEKHAR A E A

578 K VENKATESWARLU D E A 674 K DAVID CHEMIST A

579 G RAMAKRISHNUDU D E A 675 P VASANTHA RAO J A O A

580 P V SRINIVAS D E A 676 M ANITHA U D C A

581 R RAVINDRAKUMAR D E A 677 Md AHMED FMD GR-II A

582 V KRUPAKAR E E A 678 J SRINIVAS FM GR-IV A

583 V SRINIVAS J P O A 679 T TIRUPATHI Office Subordinate A

584 MD SABER PASHA J P O A 680 M SHARADA SR CHEMIST A

585 A NARASIMHARAO S E A 681 N RAJ KUMAR A E E A

586 P KUMAR BABU S E A 682 G PYDI RAJU A E A

587 B A MOHANRAO S E A 683 P SREE RAMI REDDY E E A

588 B JAGADISHCHANDRA PRASADA D E A 684 BPD NAGALAKSHMI U D C A

589 N V N KIRAN BABU ASSISTANT A 685 K SURENDRA PRASAD ELECTRICIAN A

590 G ADISESHU DIRECTOR A 686 P KESAVA RAO FM GR-I A

591 K VENKATI DRIVER A 687 P DASTAGIRI L M D A

592 V SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A 688 CH YANADHAIAH A E A

593 M SRIKRISHNA A A E A 689 G VENKATA AJAY KUMAR A E A

594 L KONDA MADHAVA REDDY A D E A 690 I VIJAYA KUMAR E E A

595 N V KRISHNA A D E A 691 D SRINIVASA RAJU A E E A

596 K SYAMA SUNDER A D E A 692 C V RANGA NAGAN S E A

597 CH RAMESH REDDY A D E A 693 M SRIDHAR J P A A

598 P MADHU BABU A D E A 694 K SUDHAKAR Rao J P A A

599 B S U M AVADHANI A D E A 695 CH SRINIVASULU SanitaryOrderly A

600 N ARUNASRI A E A 696 G VIJAYA LAXMI SUB ENGINEER A

601 CH VANI A E A 697 N ANJANI GAUTHAMI CHEMIST A

602 A KALYANI A E A 698 K RADHIKA L D C A

603 L V SWAMY NAIDU D E A 699 D NARAYANA REDDY A A E A

604 CH RAMBABU D E A

605 PV RAMANA D E A

606 B GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY D E A

607 S RANI MANDAL J P O A

608 T RAMAKRISHNA S E A

609 K VENKATESWAR RAO S E A

610 S MANIKRAO S E A

611 U G KRISHNAMURTHY DIRECTOR(Techl) A

612 T RAMAKRISHNAIAH LVDRIVER A

613 P T RAMA DHYANI A A E A

614 M S PRABHAKAR A A E A

615 BJ DHEERENDRANATH SETH A D E A

616 N LAKSHMI PRIYA A E A

617 P SRILATHA A E A

618 K S V RAMA KRISHNA A E A

619 N S N V RAMESH KUMAR A E E A

620 T HARINARAYANA REDDY A E E A

621 P V SATYANARAYANA A E E A

622 M PADMASREE A E E A

623 B PRATAP KUMAR A E E A

624 E BRUNDARANI A E E A

625 V SURYA LAKSHMI C E A

626 A T VIJAI D E A

627 S A HUSSAIN ELECTRICIAN A

628 N VENKATA RAO J P O A

629 A R SHYAM J P O A

630 K NOOKA APPA RAO Office Subordinate A

631 M ARUNALEKHA P O A

632 T SURESHKUMAR S E A

633 P SRINIVAS TYPIST A

634 S K GEETHA TYPIST A

635 K BHARATHAMMA U D C A

636 D SRINIVAS A E A

637 P INDIRA A E A

638 V VISWANATH A E A

639 G S RAVINDRA A E E A

640 K TEJESWARA RAO A E E A

641 G RAMESH KUMAR A E E A

642 K EZEKIEL A E E A

643 G V V S MURTHY ASSISTANT A

644 K RATNA BABU C E A

645 P RAMA MUTYALARAO E E A

646 A KRISHNA REDDY E E A

647 D RAMAKRISHNA REDDY E E A

648 P RAVINDRA REDDY E E A

649 R SUNITA TYPIST A

650 K RAJA A E A

651 V VANITHA A E A

652 K ARUNA KUMAR A E A

653 J RAMALNGESWARA RAO A E E A

654 P SEETHA RAM A E E A

655 K SREEKANTH A E E A

656 R V SRINIVASARAO A E E A

657 K N N RAMAKRISHNA A E E A

658 V SALINI ASSISTANT A

659 Y RAMAMOHANARAO C E A

660 V SATYANARAYANA RAJU E E A

661 B CHANDRASEKHARREDDY E E A

662 B VENKATA KALYANI TYPIST A

663 N V PADMAVATHI A S A

664 C RADHAKRISHNA DIRECTOR A

665 L SUBRAHMANYAM E E A

666 K BABU RAO A E E A

667 B AJAY KUMAR A E E A

668 K SURYANARAYANA A E E A

Annexure - 17

APTRANSCO HEAD QUARTER EMPLOYEES

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

1 MARYPRASUNA KUMARI DS A 94 J DEVANAND SE A

2 G.ASHOK BABU AS A 95 K SIVARAMAKRISHNA SASTRY SE A

3 S RAVI PRAKASH YADAV AS A 96 K PADMAJA DE A

4 G T KAMALA KUMARI PO A 97 B GANAPATHI RAO DE A

5 B K G NAGESWARA RAO PO A 98 T M MADANA SEKHAR DE A

6 M HARIBABU JPO A 99 G SEETHARAMA MURTHY DE A

7 N VENKATA LAXMI JPO A 100 G S N MALLESWARA RAO DE A

8 V R L PRASAD JPO A 101 J JYOTHI ADE A

9 CH N R KANAKA LAKSHMI JPO A 102 M BRINDA ADE A

10 K VENKATESWARA RAO JPO A 103 B MANIKYAM ADE A

11 T L SANGEETHA Tahasildar A 104 R RAM BABU ADE A

12 C.SREEDHAR Asst. A 105 M RAVI KUMAR ADE A

13 G.PEDDAPPA REDDY Asst. A 106 S SRINIVASAN ADE A

14 D P V RAMANA Asst. A 107 CH SATYA VANI ADE A

15 A G V SATYA PRAKASH Asst. A 108 CHALLA SRINIVAS ADE A

16 G PURNA DEVI Typist A 109 Y V RAMAKRISHNA ADE A

17 B SHANKAR Driver A 110 A J RAJESWARI ADE A

18 MOHD BASHA Driver A 111 D KOTESWARA RAO ADE A

19 UDAYLAL RA A 112 K VEDA PRAKASH ADE A

20 SURESH SINGH RA A 113 N D PARTHASARATHI ADE A

21 G KUMAR OS A 114 P RAVI SHANKAR NAIDU ADE A

22 R RAMULU NAIK OS A 115 K KESHAVA REDDY ADE A

23 ABDUL SUBHAN OS A 116 B LAKSHMI SUDHA ADE A

24 E YESWANTHA RAO OS A 117 K.S.prasada Reddy ADE A

25 D KRISHNA OS A 118 K.Laxmi Bhanu ADE A

26 FEMINA BEGUM OS A 119 K SRINIVASA RAO AEE A

27 D SHIVA BABU OS A 120 T NAVEENA AE A

28 K SARITHA KUMARI OS A 121 G SURESH BABU AE A

29 A S SUNDARA MURTHY OS A 122 T VIJAYA LAKSHMI AE A

30 S YASHODA Sweeper A 123 K SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI PO A

31 G RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Dir A 124 B ARUNA Sr. Steno A

32 P.SRIRAMA RAO Dir A 125 L MAHALAXMI Asst. A

33 R V SURYA RAO SE A 126 V SESHU KUMAR Typist A

34 N ANAND DE A 127 N JAGANNATH BPO A

35 P PRABHAKER DE A 128 A SESHAGIRI PO A

36 A SANNI BABU DE A 129 K V NARASIMHA CHARYULU PO A

37 B KOTESHWARA RAO DE A 130 A GOPALA KRISHNAIAH PO A

38 A SRINIVAS VIJAY KUMAR ACS A 131 K SRINIVAS AE A

39 A RAMESH ADE A 132 K MAHALAKSHMI JPO A

40 K MAHESWARA RAO ADE A 133 N GANGADHARA RAO JPO A

41 D RAMANAIAH SETTY ADE A 134 M V PADMAVATHI JPO A

42 P ASHOK CHAKRAVARTHI PO A 135 I PRASANTHI KUMARI JPO A

43 K NAGA PRASAD AE A 136 K KRISHNA KISHORE Asst. A

44 P V RANGA RAO JPO A 137 P SUDHA MALINI Asst. A

45 A S V RAMANA KUMAR JPO A 138 B SASIKALA RA A

46 T D KUMARA VADIVELU Sport.Off. A 139 M V LAKSHMI RA A

47 K DURGAPRASAD Pol.Constable A 140 C BHASKARA LAKSHMI RA A

48 T S V RAMALAXMI OS A 141 P KRISHNA MOHAN OS A

49 T PRABHAKARA RAO OS A 142 G TRINADHA REDDY OS A

50 K S SRINIVAS Joint Secretary A 143 P SRINIVAS OS A

51 S SUBRAHMANYAM CE A 144 K SURENDRA BABU CE A

52 CH HANUMANTHA RAO SE A 145 V D B SRINIVASA RAO DE A

53 M SOBHA DE A 146 P AMARAVATHI ADE A

54 P VASUNDHARA DE A 147 BALAIAH ADE A

55 A SATHYANARAYANA DE A 148 G ROOPCHAND ADE A

56 G.JANARDHANA REDDY DE A 149 M SHARMILA DURGA AE A

57 P RAMACHANDRA PRASAD DE A 150 K.RAJESWARI OS A

58 K RAMANADH GOPAL DE A 151 Y MURALI KRISHNA OS A

59 S.SWARAJYAM AO A 152 V VENKATA RAMANA SE A

60 B SARADA ADE A 153 MEERA KUMARI DE A

61 G NIRMALA ADE A 154 K SRENIVAS RAO AS A

62 T BENARJI ADE A 155 N KAMESWARI ADE A

63 S ANURADHA ADE A 156 T RAMANAIAH ADE A

64 B SUNEETHA ADE A 157 L PARTHASARATHI ADE A

65 K S V LAXMI TULSI ADE A 158 K SATYANARAYANA ADE A

66 P JYOSTNA RANI ADE A 159 SHARADA ADE A

67 N RAMAMOHAN RAO ADE A 160 T V S P PRASAD PO A

68 P CHANDRA SEKHAR ADE A 161 G THEJOVATHI AE A

69 K NAGENDRA SHARMA ADE A 162 A M PRATHYUSHA AE A

70 M SYAMALA ADE A 163 M RAMACHANDRA RAO Asst. A

71 A RAMANI PO A 164 K SITARAMA CHARYULU CE A

72 G.NARSING RAO UDC A 165 K BINDU DE A

73 V.SUCHARITHA LDC A 166 M SAI RAM KUMAR DE A

74 MD.NASEEMUDDIN LDC A 167 B VENUNADHA BABU DE A

75 P HYMAVVATHI OS A 168 P RAMALINGA SARAN DE A

76 S.KRISHNA VENI OS A 169 B NEELAKANTESWARA REDDY DE A

77 Haritha AE A 170 M SRINIVASAN RAVI DE A

78 Srilaxmi AE A 171 N RAMESH AO A

79 G. Ramanadh ADE A 172 N SIVAPRASAD ADE A

80 K SUDHA RANI CE A 173 G BHASKAR RAO ADE A

81 Y.Adam SE A 174 G RAMESH BABU ADE A

82 Y CHIRANJEEVI DE A 175 I SUDHAKAR RAO ADE A

83 CH SUBRAHMANYAM RAJU DE A 176 MD MASOOD AHMED ADE A

84 H.T.Vivekananda DE A 177 P VENKATESWARA RAO ADE A

85 S.Siva rama krishna DE A 178 V.V.MURALIDHAR AAO A

86 B.Sushil Babu ADE A 179 V RAMESH AE A

87 S.Lakshmidhar ADE A 180 CH LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH AE A

88 T V NAGESWARA RAO ADE A 181 M SAIBABA JPO A

89 P.Usha AE A 182 K NAGACHANDRIKA DEVI Asst. A

90 S.Rama devi AE A 183 C RAMACHANDRAIAH CE A

91 K.Narayana rao AAO A 184 K SIVA PRASAD SE A

92 P.Swapna Typist A 185 G V APPA RAO SE A

93 A VENKATESWARA RAO CE A 186 K KANCHAN BABU SE A

187 S SUJATHA DE A 283 N MALLESWARI JAO A

188 S.BOJJAMMA DE A 284 S RAMA PRASAD JAO A

189 K LALITHA KUMARI DE A 285 M LAKSHMI SREE JAO A

190 S SREENIVASULU ADE A 286 V SURESH KUMAR JAO A

191 K VIDYADHARI ADE A 287 B DIWAKAR REDDY JAO A

192 S CHANDRAMOULI ADE A 288 K N SRINIVASA RAO JAO A

193 N PURUSHOTHAM ADE A 289 SABEEHA SAYEEDA JAO A

194 B.MAADHU BABU ADE A 290 K V S S RAVI SANKAR JAO A

195 A V SESHAIAH ADE A 291 V M KRISHNA KUMAR JAO A

196 M PRATYUSHA PRIYADARSHINI ADE A 292 A SURENDRA BABU JAO A

197 P SWAPNA AE A 293 P CHANDRA SURESH BABU JAO A

198 S GANGADHAR AE A 294 P DEVI BHAVANI JAO A

199 G SIVASANKAR AAE A 295 V LEELA RANI JPO A

200 D. ESWARI OS A 296 M SANTOSH KUMAR JPO A

201 A VIJAYA MUNINDRA OS A 297 B JYOTHI NIRMALA KUMARI JPO A

202 M B SRINIVAS CE A 298 C RAM BAI UDC A

203 D JANARDHANA REDDY EE A 299 MOHD.AZEEMUDDIN UDC A

204 CH VASU AEE A 300 E VIJAYA LAKSHMI UDC A

205 G.RAMBABU AEE A 301 S.JANARDHANA RAO UDC A

206 S M SHOUKATH AEE A 302 D. SURESH UDC A

207 R.VENKATA KRISHNA AEE A 303 T.RAMOLA UDC A

208 B MURALIDHARENDRA REDDY AEE A 304 K HYMAVATHI UDC A

209 S MADHAVI AE A 305 P HARI HARAN UDC A

210 SHEIK AQEELA AE A 306 M SREE LAKSHMI UDC A

211 B PURUSHOTHAM AE A 307 K.JAYASREE Sr. Steno A

212 M VIJAYA KUMARI AE A 308 M RENUKA LDC A

213 CH VENUGOPALA REDDY AE A 309 SD ABDUL MALIK SHAHBAZ LDC A

214 V GOVINDA RAJAN AE A 310 M JYOTHI Typist A

215 T SHIVA KUMAR AAE A 311 G PREM KUMAR Typist A

216 G S VENKATESWARA REDDY AAE A 312 K MALLIKARJUNA RAO Typist A

217 J.L.PRASAD OS A 313 MOHD ALI RA A

218 SANDUVEKAR SUBHASH OS A 314 M SEKHAR OS A

219 J KRISHNAIAH Server A 315 A NATARAJAN OS A

220 B GURAPPA Helper A 316 ASHA BEE OS A

221 K VENKATESH Helper A 317 R BALAKISHEN OS A

222 CHANDRA SHAKER REDDY CGM A 318 MD TAJUDDIN OS A

223 G VENKATARAMANA PO A 319 ASGHAR SHAREEF OS A

224 P MEENAKSSHI BAI JPO A 320 SK MUNAWAR HUSSAIN OS A

225 K.PRASANNA LAKSHMI CGM (HRD & TRG) A 321 MD GHOUSE OS A

226 B S S PRASAD SE A 322 K NARESH OS A

227 J VIJAYA KUMAR PAPA RAO DE A 323 D NAGARAJU OS A

228 Y HANUMANTHA RAO ADE A 324 SYED KHADER OS A

229 D SREEDEVI PO A 325 JAFFAR ABBAS OS A

230 A ARUNA PO A 326 MAJEED GHORI OS A

231 R NEERAJA PO A 327 A NARSING RAO OS A

232 K.RAMNATH PO A 328 M ANJANEYA SARMA OS A

233 G SATYANARAYANA MURTHY PO A 329 SYED MOHAMOOD ALI OS A

234 S B C PREM KUMAR PO A 330 B.Vizian Kumar SE A

235 D JAGANMOHAN PATNAIK PO A 331 G.Raja Babu SE A

236 P PURUSHOTHAM JPO A 332 D.Nageswara sarma DE A

237 CH BHANU PRAKASH JPO A 333 Y.Kesavacharyulu DE A

238 H VIJAYALAKSHMI JPO A 334 N.V.V.S.Chandrasekhar DE A

239 T VENKATESWARLU JPO A 335 K.N.Narasimha Rao DE A

240 K SRI RAMA MURTHY JPO A 336 S.Swapna Sundar ADE A

241 D VENKATA LAXMI KUMARI JPO A 337 K.Lakshmi Bhanu ADE A

242 B JAYA LAKSHMI JPO A 338 P.Janardhan Rao AE A

243 V SRINIVAS Asst. A 339 V.Bhargavi AE A

244 C KRISHNAVENI Asst. A 340 M.Isaiah Richard JPO A

245 V PRASANNA Typist A 341 Y.Srikanth Typist A

246 G LOKNADHAM RA A 342 G.Shiva Kumar Typist A

247 K VENU OS A 343 Moin Khan OS A

248 MANJUNATH OS A 344 B.Srinivas OS A

249 G S SAI PRATHYUSHA OS A 345 K.Anasuja OS A

250 M YELLAIAH OS A 346 K.Anuradha ADE A

251 P.SATHYA MOORTHY DY CCA A 347 J.Sabita Rose ADE A

252 K V MURALI MOHAN DY CCA A 348 V.Indira ADE A

253 G DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Pay Officer A 349 M.Nirmala Kumari AE A

254 S MOHD ISAK SAO A 350 D.V.Padmini AE A

255 P V SUBBA RAJU SAO A 351 N.Jayachandra CE A

256 V BALASUBRAMANYAM SAO A 352 C.Raghunath SE A

257 V HARANADHA BABU SAO A 353 M.Balasubramanyam DE A

258 MD M A K AZAD SAO A 354 G.Rajeswari DE A

259 V.B.S.KUMARA GUPTA SAO A 355 B.Srinivas Rao DE A

260 K BHANU AO A 356 K.V.Ramakrishna DE A

261 M L N SARMA AO A 357 M.Jaganmohan Rao ADE A

262 D KONDAL RAO AO A 358 k.Nirmala ADE A

263 K RAMANA RAO AO A 359 N.Jayasree ADE A

264 M V MURALIDHAR AO A 360 V.Venkateswarlu ADE A

265 C V NIRMALA PO A 361 B.J.Paraneetha ADE A

266 G UMA AAO A 362 K.Ramesh ADE A

267 V RAMESH AAO A 363 V.Sridhar Reddy ADE A

268 SANU DEVI AAO A 364 G.Adinarayana AE A

269 B RAVI SAI AAO A 365 G.Nagasuchitra AE A

270 S PRABHAKAR AAO A 366 B.Umadevi AE A

271 A.S.GAYATRI AAO A 367 K.Vamshikrishna AE A

272 M PRASANTHI AAO A 368 N.VIJAY PRASAD SE A

273 B V M SWAMY AAO A 369 V.V.SATYANARAYANA DE A

274 B ANIL KUMAR AAO A 370 P.MURALI KRISHNA DE A

275 S RAJA SEKHAR AAO A 371 K.G.SRINIVASULU DE A

276 K.KANAKA DURGA AAO A 372 B.BHANU PRASAD DE A

277 C PADMAVATHI AAO A 373 K.SUNITHA ADE A

278 K V SOMAYAJULU AAO A 374 G.SURESH KUMAR ADE A

279 D VENUGOPALA RAO AAO A 375 V.ANURADHA ADE A

280 N S RAMACHANDRA MURTHY AAO A 376 M.VENKAT REDDY ADE A

281 V SASIKALA AAO A 377 J.SUNITHA AE A

282 K FEROZ KHAN JAO A 378 S.JOHN JE A

379 Y.U.S.PRASAD AE A 476 A MAHESH KUMAR ADE T

380 B.RAMAKRISHNA RAJU SE A 477 P.Narender Reddy AE T

381 P.S.V.P.ANJANEYARAO DE A 478 B PADMINI AE T

382 D.PRAVEEN DE A 479 T RAVINDER Typist T

383 DEEPAK WASNIK DE A 480 C.Shiva Rani OS T

384 P.VENKATA SATYA RAMESH DE A 481 B NAGESH OS T

385 Y.ANANTHA SRINIVAS DE A 482 K VIDYANAND OS T

386 D.VASUDEVA RAO DE A 483 NEELAM MALHOTRA SE T

387 P.NARASIMHA RAO DE A 484 J UMA RANI DE T

388 G.SUBRAMANYAM ADE A 485 M ARUNA REDDY DE T

389 M.SURYA PRAKASH RAO ADE A 486 A SARASWATHI DE T

390 P.SIVA PRASAD ADE A 487 VIRENDER KUMAR VOHRA DE T

391 K.VIJAY KUMAR ADE A 488 S NEELIMA ADE T

392 B.V.L.R.PRASAD ADE A 489 Ch.Satish Kumar ADE T

393 P.L.R.MURTHY ADE A 490 N.Sugunakar ADE T

394 P.HEMA LATHA AE A 491 M VENKATA LAKSHMI ADE T

395 B.SYAM MOHAN AE A 492 G EMMANUAL MADHUKAR ADE T

396 G.PREM KUMAR AE A 493 A.Sudhakar ADE T

397 Y.V.M.S.SRINIVAS RAO AE A 494 P PADMAJA ADE T

398 V.SRINIVASULA REDDY AE A 495 M PRAVEEN KUMAR ADE T

399 P.S.S.MURTHY AE A 496 M.Purna Chander ADE T

400 P.VIJAYA KUMAR ADE OthSt 497 K.Anand ADE T

402 V L SURENDER KARAN AS T 498 B.Vinod Kumar ADE T

403 P SANDHYARANI PO T 499 S VENKATESHAM AAE T

404 P S UMASHANKAR PO T 500 B PRABHU DAS RA T

405 A SARALA LATHA PO T 501 B RAKESH OS T

406 P LALITHA BAI PO T 502 SK ZAHURULLAH OS T

407 P SUNITHA JPO T 503 Y GEETA OS T

408 S SURESH JPO T 504 FATIMA BEE Sweeper T

409 G S MEERA JPO T 505 G NARSING RAO CE T

410 A BHASKAR JPO T 506 T.LAXMAN AS T

411 A ULIGESHWAR JPO T 507 RAM THORAT PO T

412 P KODANDARAMAIAH JPO T 508 M DAMODARAM JAO T

413 P.S.ARUNA RANI JPO T 509 B SHANKER JPO T

414 G NAGESWARA RAO JPO T 510 G BHOJ RAJ JPO T

415 P VENKATESHWARLU JPO T 511 K BUCHI BABU JPO T

416 M SRINIVASA REDDY JPO T 512 T SWAROOPALATHA JPO T

417 K SULOCHANA RANI JPO T 513 K JAGAN MOHAN RAO JPO T

418 MD RAHEEM Asst. T 514 D NARSING RAO JPO T

419 V SESHA GIRIDHAR Asst. T 515 P SURESH KUMAR JPO T

420 S HARI KISHAN Asst. T 516 K BHASKAR Asst. T

421 SYED ABDUL KHALEEQ Asst. T 517 A SHAI REDDY Asst. T

422 A SUNITHA Typist T 518 C VIJAYASARADHI Asst. T

423 K SURENDER REDDY RO T 519 K SATYANARAYANA Typist T

424 S KHAJA MOINUDDIN OS T 520 M A HAMEED QUADRI LMD T

425 B.UMAKAR RAO Dir(Projects&Coordn) T 521 B.BAL RAJ RA T

426 CH.CHENNA REDDY Dir(Transmission) T 522 VIJAYA LAXMI RA T

427 P DAMODER DE T 523 MUSTAQ AHMED RA T

428 A SREENIVASA REDDY DE T 524 M ASHOK KUMAR RA T

429 N SRINIVAS ADE T 525 M VIJAYA KUMAR. RA T

430 G RAMANA KIRAN ADE T 526 TAHNIAT SHAHANA RA T

431 K C VENKATA SWAMY AEE T 527 B SRINIVAS OS T

432 N VIJAY KUMAR PO T 528 HAFEEZ AHMED OS T

433 S RUKMAN NAIK AAO T 529 M SHAM BAI OS T

434 M MALLESH JPO T 530 MEERA MATHUR OS T

435 R SREEDHAR JPO T 531 M NAGAMANI Helper T

436 P R CHANDRAKALA JPO T 532 P C THAMPI Cook T

437 D UPPALAIAH JPO T 533 S SHANKARAIAH Cook T

438 B VENKANNA JPO T 534 T RANGAIAH Ast.Cook T

439 P YADAGIRI UDC T 535 R MOHAN Cleaner T

440 B GOVARDHAN UDC T 536 A NARASIMHA Cleaner T

441 P NAGESHWARA RAO UDC T 537 S SAIRAM SE T

442 CH JANARDHAN Sr. Steno T 538 A VIVEKANAND DE T

443 C SAHADEV Sr. Steno T 539 T SRI HARI ADE T

444 N JANGAIAH Typist T 540 B RAVI KUMAR ADE T

445 E MANOHAR RAO HD.Constable T 541 A PRAVEEN KUMAR ADE T

446 G VENKAT RAM REDDY Pol.Constable T 542 J NARASIMHA SWAMY ADE T

447 MAHADEV SINGH FM-DR-II T 543 B VIJAYA BHASKARA RAO ADE T

448 M GNANESWAR FM-DR-II T 544 S KIRAN KUMAR AE T

449 AYUB ALI OS T 545 K KIRAN KUMAR AE T

450 K SRINIVAS OS T 546 K N SRINIVASA RAO JE T

451 TULJARAM SINGH OS T 547 MD LIYAKAT ALI Asst. T

452 ABDUL KHADEER OS T 548 P SHEKAR OS T

453 A SURENDER OS T 549 B SATHAIAH OS T

454 D SREEKANTH OS T 550 ABDUL KHADER OS T

455 SHAIK MOID OS T 551 D JANGAIAH Watchman T

456 A RAGHUVARAN OS T 552 B V SANTHI SESHU CE T

457 S PRAVEEN KUMAR OS T 553 K ASHOK DE T

458 G BAL REDDY Inspector of Police T 554 D R VISWANADHA RAO DE T

459 D LATHA VINOD SE T 555 K HEMA ADE T

460 S D RAVI VARMA SE T 556 P NAGESWARI ADE T

461 B RAVI DE T 557 L MURALIKRISHNA ADE T

462 A SUREKHA DE T 558 P PRAKASHAM AAE T

463 K VENKATESWARLU ADE T 559 G KALPANA Typist T

464 D JOHN SRINIVAS ADE T 560 V GOVARDHAN RAJ Typist T

465 Moinuddin ADE T 561 B RAJ KUMAR OS T

466 G V BHASKER ADE T 562 ABDUL RASOOL OS T

467 K UMESH BABU ADE T 563 A ANASUYA OS T

468 C SURENDER REDDY ADE T 564 G PURNA PRAKASH REDDY DE T

469 M KALPANA Asst. T 565 K RAM MOHAN ADE T

470 MIR AKBAR ALI OS T 566 V ARUN KUMAR ADE T

471 Devashayam ADE T 567 G SMITHA AE T

472 C. Radhika AE T 568 K G P N RAJU AE T

473 Ravinder Reddy LDC T 569 S ASHWINI SARITHA AE T

474 G.Laxman raju ADE T 570 B BABU RAO OS T

475 V YADAGIRI ADE T 571 K NARAYANA OS T

572 GULAM MOHD MOHIUDDIN OS T 668 G. DAYAKAR OS T

573 M L S V PRASADA RAO DE T 669 R.NARASIMHA OS T

574 JV HANUMANTHA SASTRY DE T 670 D YEDUKONDALU OS T

575 N SIVAJI ADE T 671 K V NIRMALAMMA OS T

576 SURAJ SINGH ADE T 672 S CHANDRA KALA OS T

577 K CHENNAIAH ADE T 673 T SUJATHA FA&CCA T

578 Y CHIRANJEEVULU ADE T 674 M A AZEEM SABERI FA&CCA T

579 B H G SUBRAHMANYAM ADE T 675 G SREENIVAS DY CCA T

580 O HARIPRASAD RAO ADE T 676 K PRAKASH RAO DY CCA T

581 A VIJAYKANTH AE T 677 G R PRATAP SAO T

582 G N PREM KUMAR Asst. T 678 R ANJANEYULU AO T

583 S V RAMA KRISHNA RAJU Typist T 679 T SATYANARAYANA AO T

584 MOHD QUASIM ALI Typist T 680 K PADMA AAO T

585 N BALA KRISHNA RA T 681 M A MUQTADEER AAO T

586 K RAJITHA OS T 682 A YELLA REDDY AAO T

587 T LAKSHMAMMA OS T 683 J PRAMILA DEVI AAO T

588 RAHIMUNNISA OS T 684 T EMMANUEL RAJ AAO T

589 K LAXMI BAI OS T 685 K V SATYAVANI AAO T

590 K VARA LAKSHMI OS T 686 G CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY AAO T

591 M SATYNARAYANA OS T 687 B ANANDA SWAROOPINI AAO T

592 K RAGHU EE T 688 D VINOD JAO T

593 K SURESH AEE T 689 MOHD ALI JAO T

594 K.SIVA RAJU AEE T 690 N KEDARI JAO T

595 G CHANDRA SHEKAR AEE T 691 H ANAND JAO T

596 SABER HUSSAIN PO T 692 R PANDARI JAO T

597 M PRASANTH KUMAR AE T 693 G VINOD KUMAR JAO T

598 M KONDAL RAO AAE T 694 V ASHOK KUMAR JAO T

599 M SUKANYA JPO T 695 M ASHOK KUMAR JAO T

600 C BALANARASIMHA Asst. T 696 K RAVINDRANATH JAO T

601 P S SUDHAKAR RAO Asst. T 697 K SWAROOPA RANI JAO T

602 M KASIM ALM T 698 P. NARSING RAO JAO T

603 S RAJU OS T 699 M A NASAR SHARIF JAO T

604 G SRINIVAS OS T 700 B PRASANNA LAKSHMI JAO T

605 P SATYANARAYANA OS T 701 S THIRUPATHI REDDY JAO T

606 SYED YOUSUF Server T 702 M VENKATESHWARA REDDY JAO T

607 P PRATAP REDDY Cleaner T 703 G SRINIVASA CHARY JAO T

608 PUSHPAMMA Sweeper T 704 D SRINIVAS JAO T

609 B SURAMMA Sweeper T 705 D PADMA JPO T

610 ANNAPURNA Sweeper T 706 K CH SHOWRI UDC T

611 P BALAMANI Sweeper T 707 M MANJULA UDC T

612 ZUBEDA BEGUM Sweeper T 708 S.ANAND KUMAR UDC T

613 SABITA SOR T 709 AHMEDI BEGUM UDC T

614 JYOTHI SOR T 710 M RAJA NARENDER UDC T

615 RAJU SOR T 711 T SATYANARAYANA UDC T

616 RESHAMLAL SOR T 712 N MADHAVA REDDY UDC T

617 NARESH KUMAR SWG T 713 K SRINIVAS REDDY UDC T

618 D KRISHNA Watchman T 714 N V SIVARAMA KRISHNA UDC T

619 Y NARSIMHULU Watchman T 715 K RAJ KUMAR Typist T

620 Y CHANDRAMOULI Watchman T 716 KHURRAM BIN SALEEM Typist T

621 M PRAKASH MASON GR II T 717 MD ZAHID ALI RA T

622 MOHD JAFFER MASON GR II T 718 HAZEERA BEGUM OS T

623 NISSAR JLM T 719 E SRINIVASULU OS T

624 D BABU MALI T 720 FEROZA SULTHANA OS T

625 P NARSIMHULOO MALI T 721 G SUJATHA LAKSHMI OS T

626 NIRUPA AS T 722 UDAY KUMAR ST.KPR T

627 M V SRIDHAR RAO AS T 723 K.Radha CE T

628 SAFIA BEGUM JPO T 724 G.Anjaneyulu DE T

629 R ESHWARAMMA Asst. T 725 B.Sanjay Kumar ADE T

630 TEJPAL OS T 726 Ajay Kumar ADE T

631 B.VASANTHA OS T 727 M.Satya Srinivas ADE T

632 S SHOBHA RANI DS T 728 K.Sravan kumar Gupta ADE T

633 J SHANKAR DE T 729 G.Praveen Kumar ADE T

634 T MADHUSUDHAN DE T 730 K.Rajeshwar DE T

635 B GANESH RAO AS T 731 M.Srinivas ADE T

636 M URMILA DEVI AS T 732 M.Sheshagiri ADE T

637 G RAMARAJU ADE T 733 P.Saritha kumari AE T

638 T UMALAXMI ADE T 734 M.Shivakumar AE T

639 P VEENADHARI PO T 735 P.Srinivas AE T

640 C MADHAVI LATHA PO T 736 Rajkumar OS T

641 MD ABDUL BASIT FAROOQUI PO T 737 Kistaiah OS T

642 T PARAMESHA AE T 738 Syamprasad OS T

643 G RAMESH JPO T 739 ASHOKA CHARY CE T

644 R VANI JPO T 740 V.KISHAN RAO SE T

645 V KRISHNA JPO T 741 V.MANMADA RAO CE T

646 D VANAJA JPO T 742 K.SHIVA RAMULU DE T

647 M RAJENDER JPO T 743 B.N.JAGADESHWAR ADE T

648 B KAUSALYA JPO T 744 N.SUGUNAKAR RAO ADE T

649 TAHERA BANU JPO T 745 Annapurna ADE T

650 N GOWRAMMA JPO T 746 B.SWETHA AE T

651 C SATYAJYOTHI JPO T 747 M.NARASING RAO TYPIST T

652 D SHANTHA KUMARI JPO T 748 Y.SONIA SAMA JPO T

653 D RANADHIR KUMAR JPO T 749 MD. ANWARUDDIN CE T

654 T CHANDRA SEKHAR JPO T 750 P.SURESH BABU DE T

655 P BHARGAVI JPO T 751 M.AMARENDER REDDY DE T

656 T ANANTHA LAXMI JPO T 752 BALAIAH DE T

657 B N CHANDRA MOHAN JPO T 753 J.SRINIVASULU ADE T

658 MD SARWARUDDIN Asst. T 754 V.RAMESH KUMAR ADE T

659 K SHOBHA Asst. T 755 K.MADHAVA RAO ADE T

660 CH MADHAVI Asst. T 756 P.VENKATA MADHUSUDHAN ADE T

661 P SURYA PRAKASHA RAO Asst. T 757 T.SATYANANDAM ADE T

662 P VARALAXMI Asst. T 758 A.MADHAVI ADE T

663 S SUVARNALATHA Asst. T 759 CH.UMAMAHESWARAIAH ADE T

664 K VIJAYKUMAR Typist T 760 K.VARAPRASADA RAO ADE T

665 B VENU GOPAL Typist T 761 B.RAJA THIRUPATHI ADE T

666 M SHARADA OS T 762 Rahimkhan ADE T

667 AFSAR BEGUM OS T 763 HARISH AE T

764 R.KALPANA AE T 792 T.Hemalatha Typist UnKn

765 G.RAVI KUMAR AE T 793 SYED NAZEERUDDIN Pol.Constable UnKn

766 R.PREM KUMAR AE T 794 P JEEVANA MURTHY Pol.Constable UnKn

767 P VENKATA RAMANA DE A 795 A.Jaganatharao UnKn

768 R SHANMUKHA RAO DE A 796 R KRISHNA Driver UnKn

769 K.Rajmannar CE A 797 MD SHER ALI Driver UnKn

770 AJAY JAIN, IAS CMD UnKn 798 MOHD GHOUSE Driver UnKn

771 UMESH SHARRAF,IPS JMD(V&S) UnKn 799 A ETTAIAH OS UnKn

772 M CHANDRA SEKHAR ADE UnKn 800 B PRASAD OS UnKn

773 M SREENIVASA RAO ADE UnKn 801 C VENKATESHAM OS UnKn

774 BALACHANDER RAO ADE T 802 K SRINIVASA RAO OS UnKn

775 K VENKATA RAMANA ADE UnKn 803 SYED.AZIZ AHMED OS UnKn

776 N SUDARSHAN AEE T 804 A V VENKATESWARA RAO OS UnKn

777 D SWAPNA AE A 805 G SUDARSHAN OS UnKn

778 S DADA HAYAT KHALANDER AE A 806 ABDUL KALEEM OS UnKn

779 K.Srinivas AE UnKn 807 R VINOD KUMAR OS UnKn

780 P.Venkulu AE UnKn 808 P NARASING RAO OS UnKn

781 B.K.MANIKYA VARMA AE UnKn 809 GULAM MOHD.TAHER OS UnKn

782 B SURYA KUMAR PO UnKn 810 MD MOINUDDIN OS UnKn

783 G.Merchy PO UnKn 811 K.Yadamma OS UnKn

784 R SRINIVAS Asst. UnKn 812 Md.Saleem Khan OS UnKn

785 K.Ravi Asst UnKn 813 M.Satyavani SWG UnKn

786 G.V.Satya vani Asst UnKn 814 K.Premalatha OS UnKn

787 VIJAYA MARIA JPO UnKn 815 G.Kavitha OS UnKn

788 P SHOBHA RANI JPO UnKn 816 P.Shyam Raj OS UnKn

789 N SATYANARAYANA Typist UnKn 817 B.Venkat Rao OS UnKn

790 R.Nagaratna JPO UnKn 818 CH MALLA REDDY LMD UnKn

791 R.Sreedhar Rao JPO UnKn 819 JAIHIND LMD UnKn

Annexure - 18

APCPDCL HEAD QUARTER EMPLOYEES

S.NO Name of the Employee DesignationRegion S.NO Name of the Employee DesignationRegion

1 KALLOORI DILEEP KUMAR DE T 91 K SARASWATHI PO T

2 NALLA NEVEEN REDDY AE T 92 VADLAMANNATI USHA RANI PO T

3 KARANAM RAVI KUMAR AS A 93 A JHANSI LAKSHMI PO T

4 D VICTORIA KRUPADANAMMA CGM A 94 UCKOO SHARADA PO T

5 BHARGAVA RAMUDU DE A 95 GORTY SUDHA PO T

6 REDDEM NARAYANA REDDY GM A 96 SULTANA ZEHRA PO T

7 HINDUPUR NARAYANA MOORTHY SE A 97 BAILE RAMESH PO T

8 M MADHAV AAO A 98 RONDI RAVINDRANATH PO T

9 GURANA ANURADHA ADE A 99 GANGADHAR CHAYA DEVI PO T

10 ODULAPALLI SIVA RAMULU ADE A 100 KUNTIPURAM PADMAJA PO T

11 POTHU RAJU JOHN ADE A 101 TAGGELLA RAMULU VIJAYA LAXMI PO T

12 GURRAM YELLAPPA ADE A 102 RAJAGOPALAN LAKSHMI PO T

13 P VIJAHATH ALI KHAN AE A 103 MB RAVI KUMAR AAE T

14 KOMALAPATI SUDHAKAR BABU AEE A 104 SYED FAIYAZ QUADRI AAE T

15 Y SUNITHA ASST A 105 KUMBHAM THIRUPATHIAIAH GOUD AAE T

16 A RIJWAN AHMED ASST A 106 VIKRAM NIMBALKAR ASST T

17 N VEERABHADRA RAO JAO A 107 MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAZZACK JAO T

18 CH NAGESHWAR REDDY JAO A 108 CH TRIVENI JAO T

19 RUSUM RAGHAVENDRA RAO JPO A 109 G RAVI RAJ JAO T

20 SYED IMTIZ PASHA JPO A 110 M HANUMANTH JAO T

21 Y R RAVI KUMAR REDDY UDC A 111 R NARASINGH JPO

22 T C SATYANARAYANA AO O 112 MD. JEELANI JPO T

23 GOLLAPALLI KRISHNAMURTHY CS A 113 V GANGA BHAVANI LDC T

24 BHUKKE GOPAL AE A 114 SYED MUSTAFA HUSSAIN UDC T

25 P GAJENDRA KUMAR JPO A 115 MD SIRAJUDDIN UDC T

26 MADINENI SATYA KUMAR SUB-ENGRA 116 G MANJULA UDC T

27 SYED BILAL BASA CGM A 117 MIR BAHBOOD ALI ATTR T

28 BASETTYRANGARU RAMAMURTHY ADE A 118 M RAM BABU OS T

29 P MANJULATHA AE A 119 SYED YOUSUF OS T

30 K SUDHAKAR BABU CHOUDHARY AAE A 120 KAMALAKAR OS T

31 MJM RAVI KUMAR AAE A 121 N VEERA BHADRA RAO OS T

32 V SIVA GANESHA RAO JPO A 122 BALARAMKUNJ SUDESH KUMAR OS T

33 P ANATHA RAMA SHARMA JPO A 123 NAKKA PRABHAKAR OS T

34 PRABHAKULA JAYA PRAKASH JPO A 124 VIJAY RAM OS T

35 YERVA VENKATA NAGESH KUMAR LDC A 125 KATIKA SUSHILA OS T

36 MEKA SREE KRISHNA PRASAD SAO A 126 M A NAVEED OS T

37 BATHULA LALITHA SE A 127 P SHIVA SHANKAR OS T

38 CH SANGEETHA AE A 128 B DURGALAMMA SGSO T

39 K.V.V BAPANNA AAE A 129 MATHI DYVA MANOHAR RAJU DE T

40 Y SAMBASIVA RAO JPO A 130 LIMGAMPALLY ANIL KUMAR DE T

41 MAKKAPATI SRINIVASA RAO DE A 131 TIRUPATHI CHANDRA SHEKAR DE T

42 VEMPATI DURGA NAGESWARA SARMA. SE A 132 MURKI RADHA KISHAN SAO T

43 VULLAGANTI SUBBA RAO SE A 133 BHOOKYA LOLYA RAO NAIK SE T

44 P MARTHAIAH AAO A 134 M RAVINDER AAO T

45 SHAIK RAFI AAE A 135 G NALINI AE T

46 K SUDHAKAR RAO ASST A 136 K KRISHNA REDDY JAO T

47 B SHIV KISHORE JPO A 137 TOKALA LAKSHMAMMA AS T

48 V RAMAKOTESHWARA RAO TYPIST A 138 BANOTHU SRINIVASA RAO ADE T

49YENUGADADHATI VENKATA RAMANA KUMARI AS T 139 CHAVA RAMASREE ADE T

50 PEDDINTI VIJAYA LAKSHMI AS T 140 TEJAVATH SHANKAR AE T

51 MD HABEEB AS T 141 P SUNITHA JAO T

52 MOHD MAJEEDULLAH KHAN AS T 142 P BINDU PRESELLA JPO T

53 CHADUVETTIPERUMAL MUNEESWARAN DE T 143 VEMPATY PRABHAKAR AS A

54 UBBA VIDYA SAGAR DE T 144 PARIMI RAGHAVENDRA RAO DE A

55 AMARVAJ VENUGOPAL DE T 145 VURIMI VEERA HANUMANTHA RAO SAO A

56 V SUDHAKAR SE T 146 K LAXMINARAYANA ADE A

57 A SIVA SHANKAR SASTRY SE T 147 DEVARAKONDA SESHA SRINIVASA SASTRY ADE A

58 JALTAR YADAIAH SE T 148 T H K S KAMESWARA RAO ADE A

59 MULUGU RAVI KUMAR AAO T 149 BOMMAREDDY KARUNAKARA REDDY AE A

60 RAMA SUDHAKAR REDDY AAO T 150 K.T.V.S. HARANADHA BABU JAO A

61 P PADMAVATHI AAO T 151 KATEPOGU PREMANANDA RAO CGM A

62 VUKKUSILA PARTHA SARATHI AAO T 152 MALA VENKATESULU CGM A

63 CHIKBALAPUR NAGENDRA KIRAN KUMR AAO T 153 JANAVAT MATHRU NAIK SAO A

64 CH SATYA PRAKASH ADE T 154 MARAM REDDY NAGA VARA PRASAD REDDY SE A

65 SANDHYA SREE ADE T 155 D ANWAR BASHA AAO A

66 GUNDU SHANKER ADE T 156 VEMULA SATYANARAYANA AAO A

67 KARUMURI CHANDRA MOHAN ADE T 157 KEELA SEVALAPATTI RAMA MURALI ADE A

68 MAROJU SRINIVASA CHARY ADE T 158 P A.JYOTHIRMAYI ADE A

69 TUMU CHIRANJEEVI RAO ADE T 159 BOJUGU JEEVA RATNAM ADE A

70 KATROJU SATISH KUMAR ADE T 160 BODOLLA SRINIVASULU AAE A

71 MUTHAMSETTY SIVA PARVATHI ADE T 161 BOYA BOMBAY RAMANA MURTHY AAE A

72 MARIGADDI JYOTHI RANI ADE T 162 B SREEDHARA REDDY LM A

73 SEELAM SUNIL KUMAR ADE T 163 NAIK LAXMI NARAYANA DE T

74 G NAGESHWAR RAO ADE T 164 MALKAPURAM RAVIKIRAN ADE T

75 KATTA MADHAVI ADE T 165 BIJENEPALLY SRINIVASULU ADE T

76 GANDHAM MOHAN ADE T 166 SABAVAT RAJU NAIK ADE T

77 KARUTURI RAM BABU ADE T 167 DESHAWATH RAMADAS ADE T

78 BATHULA MAHESHWAR ADE T 168 N VENU GOPAL REDDY ADE T

79 BATHULA JAGDISHWAR RAO ADE T 169 P SARALAKUMARI AE T

80 RENTAM NARENDER REDDY AE T 170 K SREELAKSHMI AE T

81 DHAYAPULAY VENKATA NARAYAN RAO AE T 171 RAM SRINIVAS REDDY AE T

82 KUDIKALA ASHOK KUMAR AE T 172 MOHD GOUSE AO T

83 GURUJALA PAVANI AE T 173 PONNAPALLI RAMA SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY AO T

84 P MADHAVI AE T 174 GORLA ISAAC MURIAL DAYAMANI PO T

85 R SARADA AE T 175 MEDISETTY RAGHAVENDRA GUPTA AAE T

86 IMRAN KHAN AE T 176 M ASHOK KUMAR AAE T

87 K SRAVANTHI AE T 177 CH VIJAYA SREE ASST T

88 KURAKULA SHAMBABU AO T 178 K SIVA PRASAD ASST T

89 MARGAM PRABHULINGAM AO T 179 CHAKRAVARTHULA VINOD KUMAR JAO T

90 PINJARA MALLESH AO T 180 A J PRAVEEN KUMAR JPO T

181 M SUDHADAR REDDY CGM T 257 M NAGESHWAR RAO UDC A

183 K HARA PRASAD GM T 258 K UMAMAHESHWARI JPO A

184 DARISY RANGANADH ROY GM T 259 ASHRE SATISH KUMAR CGM O

185 T NARASIMHA DASS SE T 260 MALLAVARAPU SREEDEVI DE O

186 Y NARENDER REDDY SE T 261 CHINTALURI NAGA MURALI KRISHNA MURTHY DE O

187 MUSTI PRABHU AAO T 262 BANDARU MURALI KRISHNA DE O

188 BINGI SATYANARAYANA ADE T 263 BEEMAN BABU RAO GM O

189 GAJAWADA MANOHAR ADE T 264 BATHULA KAMAL KUMAR ADE O

190 P ASHOK KUMAR AE T 265 GANGADHARA SRIKANTH ADE O

191 MD ZUBAIR HUSSAIN AO T 266 KASETTY SHIVAKUMAR AE O

192 ITHA NARAYANA AO T 267 DHARMATEJA SATYANARYANA AAE O

193 P SIVA PRASAD AAE T 268 BUDOTHA MADDULETI DE A

194 AG NAGBHUSHNAM AAE T 269 M B SIRISHA AAO A

195 M A RAHEEM ASST T 270 MANDA DILIP KUMAR DE T

196 I MURALIDHAR JAO T 271 G BRAHMENDAR RAO ADE T

197 V SRIDEVI JAO T 272 CH NAGESWARA RAO ADE T

198 NARAYANADAS SATHAIAH CGM T 273 BANAPURAM KRISHNA ADE T

199 GARLAPATI RAJA REDDY DE T 274 K NEERAJA AE T

200 KATTA JAIHIND DE T 275 K BHAVANI AE T

201 KUNTLA SATYANARAYANA REDDY SAO T 276 K MAHESHWAR AE T

202 MANDHADI VENKATA HANUMANTH RAO AAO T 277 MADIGA LALITHA AO T

203 GANDHI CHANDRASHEKHAR AAO T 281 PANDAVULU KRISHNAVENI ADE A

204 REPAKA RAMANA REDDY AAO T 282 VANGAPANDU SREERAMULU ADE A

205 DUDALA VEERASWAMY AAO T 283SIVALANKA SRINIVASA DURGA MAHESHWARA RAO DE A

206 CHILUKURU CHANDRUDU AAO T 284 CHINAMUTHEVI HYMA ADE A

207 MANIKYALA VENKATESHWARLU AAO T 285 B SWATHI AE A

208 MEKA KARUNAKAR REDDY AAO T 286 PULISETTI RAMANA WM A

209 VANAMA RAJAIAH ADE T 287 R RAMAKRISHNA AE A

210 MIRYALA SURYANARAYANA ADE T 288 TADURI NARASIMHA MURTHY DE T

211 P KRISHNA ADE T 289 POTHKANOORI BRAHMAM DE T

212 MAHESWARAM VENKATA CHARY ADE T 290 ILAPAKURTY VEERA RAGHAVA RAO GM T

213 J DASARADHA ADE T 291 G SATYAMMA ADE T

214 SANGEM VENKATESWARLU ADE T 292 THANGELLA GARUTHMANTHRAJU ADE T

215 B S JAIPRAKASH NAIK ADE T 293 BANOTH REDYA NAIK PO T

216 RAMADUGU SREEDHAR AE T 294 J NAGARANI JAO T

217 CH KAMALAKAR REDDY AE T 295 CHINNAM PRABHAKAR RAO AS A

218 G SATYANARAYANA AE T 296 KUPPA PURUSHOTHAM GM A

219 M NAGA RANI AE T 297 M R SATYAGOPAL Legal Offcr A

220 G MADHAVI AE T 298 ANDRA SIVA KAMESWARI KANAKA DURGA AAO A

221 GODUGUNTLA YADAIAH AAE T 299 KOSURU VIJAYA VARMA PO A

222 DHANVATH KISHAN LAL AAE T 300 CHALA SANI SRINIVAS AAE A

223 BANOTH CHARAN SINGH AAE T 301 PALUKURI VEERA RATNA BAHADUR SRINIVAS UDC A

224 KANDA GATLA SEENAIAH AAE T 302 GANNAWARAPU ANNAPURNA RA A

225 B TRIVENI ASST T 303 P MURALI AE Unknown

226 A MANJULA ASST T 304 P VENKATA VARA PRASAD AE Unknown

227 POTHUKANOORY NARSIMHA CHARY JAO T 305 D RADHIKA AE Unknown

228 KAVUKUNTLA BIXAPATHY JAO T 306 A RAVI KUMAR AE Unknown

229 KATTA SRINIVASA REDDY JAO T 307 R VISALI AE Unknown

230 M LAXMINARAYANA JAO T 308 A CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AE Unknown

231 B SRINIVAS REDDY JPO T 309 P SUBHASHINI AE Unknown

232 P SURESH KUMAR JPO T 310 P VIJAYA LAXMI AE Unknown

233 B RAMESH LDC T 311 SADIA RAHANA AE Unknown

234 B ANITHA UDC T 312 P SARALA RANI AE Unknown

235 JANA SREENIVASULU DE A 313 R PALLAVI KUMARI AE Unknown

236 OGGU RAJA SEKHARAM DE A 314 B SWETHA AE Unknown

237 R RAJENDER DAYAL GM A 315 B KRISHNA MANIKYA VARMA AE Unknown

238 MANTHRI BALRAJ DE T 316 J SWAPNA AE Unknown

239 MUVVA PRASAD RAO ADE T 317 N PREM KUMAR AE Unknown

240 A SRINIVAS RAO ADE T 318 T V NAGENDER KUMAR AE Unknown

241 G ANURADHA AE T 319 K PAVAN KUMAR AE Unknown

242 KOMAROOL VENU GOPAL AAE T 320 R V KRISHNA MOHAN AE Unknown

243 N SUJANA SREE ASST T 321 C NIRANJAN REDDY AE Unknown

244 T SURYABHAN SINGH JAO T 322 M SAIRAM AE Unknown

245 V SHIVAJI GM A 323 K SRIKANTH AE Unknown

246 T SARIKA DEVI AE A 324 N SREEDHAR AE Unknown

247 M SOWMYA AE A 325 D NAGARAJA RAO AE Unknown

248 N INDIRA AE A 326 P SRINIVASULU AE Unknown

249 V LAXMINARAYANA JPO A 327 B SHANTHA KUMAR AAE Unknown

250 M THAMAS LDC A 328 V KRISHNAPPA AAE Unknown

251 D HEMACHANDAR LDC A 329 G GOVINDA RAO AAE Unknown

252 N G MAHENDER LDC A 330 P RAVI BHUSAN AAE Unknown

253 T VINEEL NAG LDC A 331 R VINAYAK AAE Unknown

254 V NARENDAR LDC A 332 B VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY JLM Unknown

255 E LAXMINARAYANA LDC A 333 P NANDA KISHORE LDC Unknown

256 I RAVI KUMAR UDC A 334 M MADHUSUDANA RAO SUB-ENGR Unknown

Annexure - 19

KTPP, Bhupalapalli, Warangal Dist. EMPLOYEES

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

1 C.V.Ramana Rao SAO A 90 G.Venkataiah UDC T

2 N.Suryanarayana EE A 91 N. Balaraju JAO T

3 T.S.V.Subba Rao EE A 92 B.Raja Sree JAO T

4 V.Mallikarjuna Rao SE A 93 N.Suguna Bai JAO T

5 Sri G.Kishore Babu CE A 94 M.V.Ramakirshna AAE A

6 M.Sreenivasulu DE A 95 D.Narayana Reddy AAE A

7 G.Ahalya Devi DE A 96 K. Muralidhara Rao AAE A

8 Y.Suresh Babu SE A 97 Ch.Veeraiah JPA T

9 K.Srinivasa Rao DE A 98 Md.Afzal MM T

10 NL.Narasimham DE A 99 P.Rajeshwari PA T

11 A.Kanaka Rao DE A

12 D. Babu Rao EE A KTPS-V&VI, Paloncha, Khammam District EMPLOYEES

13 V.Mangesh Kumar DE T S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

14 D.Saidulu AAO T 1 V.VENKATESWARLU DYCCA A

15 N.D.Gnana Prakash AEE A 2 K.SURIBABU DE A

16 D.V.S.Surya Prakash AE A 3 T.U.N.SRINIVAS DE A

17 P.Veera Mohan AE A 4 M.V.V.SATYANARAYANA SE A

18 K.Srinivas AEE A 5 K.NARAYANA MURTHY DE A

19 M.Pasupathinath AEE A 6 M.MARUTHI PRASAD DE A

20 A.Bhagyalakshmi AE A 7 A.VENKATA SATYA SIVAKUMAR EE A

21 B.Shivasankar AE A 8 V.VENKATA REDDY. EE A

22 K. Venkata Ramana AEE A 9 S.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO SE A

23 K. Yogeswara Reddy AEE A 10 N.RAJA SEKHARA RAO CE A

24 G.Ramesh Babu AE A 11 CH.RAMAMOHAN RAO DE A

25 G.Sudheer AE A 12 G.V.RAMPRASAD EE A

26 Kum.B.Supriya AE A 13 J.RAMA KRISHNA DE A

27 B.Satyanarayana Reddy AE A 14 T.S.N MURTHY DE A

28 T.Hari Reddy AE A 15 S.V.K.RAVINDRA KUMAR EE A

29 T.B.A.Satyanarayana AE A 16 CH.APPAJI DE A

30 N.Raj Bob AEE A 17 D.CHINA KAMESWARA RAO DE A

31 Ch.Rajeshwar AE T 18 P.SRIDHAR DE A

32 K.Vernkataramana Rao AE T 19 M.GOWRIPATHI DE A

33 N.Vamshidhar AE T 20 P.VENKATA NAIDU DE A

34 G.J.RamCharan AE T 21 Y.S.S PRASAD DE A

35 S.Pavan Kumar ADE T 22 B.PARVATHI DE A

36 N.V.Vijaya Bhaskar AEE T 23 S.VEEREDDY DE A

37 E.Suresh kumar ADE T 24 B.RAMA MOHANA RAO EE A

38 K.Mahipal ADE T 25 A.Narahari Prasad LWO A

39 S.Rajanarsu ADE T 26 K.RAMESH BABU AE A

40 S.Sadanand ADE T 27 T.MANJUNATH CHEMIST A

41 T.Anandam ADE T 28 P. BHUPATHI ADE A

42 K.Balabrahmachary AE T 29 P. UGANDHAR AE A

43 Kum S.Sravanthi AE T 30 O.KALPANA AE A

44 Md.Naseeruddin AE T 31 P.K.PARANDAMAN AE A

45 O.Srinivas AE T 32 D.SIVACHANDRA RAO ADE A

46 S.Karunasree AE T 33 G.N.V.S.JAGGA RAO ADE A

47 Ch.Suman Kumar AE T 34 G.SEETA RAMAYYA ADE A

48 V.Santhosh Kumar AE T 35 M.RAJA RAMESH KUMAR ADE A

49 K.Narotham Reddy AEE T 36 A.NARAYANA RAO AE A

50 B.Tirupathi AEE T 37 D.BHEEMESWARA RAO AE A

51 N.Vamshi Krishna AE T 38 K.ANAND SRINIVAS AE A

52 A.Srinivas ADE T 39 D. CHANDRA REKHA AE A

53 T.Mohan Babu ADE T 40 N.GOVINDA RAO AEE A

54 K.Pandari AE T 41 M. ESWARUDU CHEMIST A

55 P.Uppalaiah AEE T 42 S.SIVANNARAYANA ADE A

56 Kum M.Swaroopa Rani AE T 43 A.DEENA KUMARI AE A

57 P.Ramesh AE T 44 A.VANAJA AE A

58 M.Ramakrishna Rao ADE T 45 B.PARAMESWARA RAO AE A

59 B.Madhusudhan Reddy ADE T 46 K.RAJANI SESHU AE A

60 D.Ramesh ADE T 47 KUNAGU CHANDRA SEKHAR. AE A

61 M.Raju ADE T 48 M.KALPANA AE A

62 T.Rajender ADE T 49 S.NAGARJUNA AE A

63 A.Sahodar AE T 50 M. ANKINEEDU AE A

64 K.Vasu AE T 51 A.SOMAIAH AEE A

65 M.Ananda Babu AE T 52 K.RAJEEV AEE A

66 N.Shankaraiah AE T 53 M.PRADEEP CHEMIST A

67 P.Niranjan Reddy AE T 54 D.VENKATA LAXMAIAH SR. CHEMIST A

68 J.Aruna Devi AE T 55 B.SUDHAKAR ADE A

69 A.Spandana AE T 56 CHUNDURU SRINIVASA RAO ADE A

70 A.Ramesh AE T 57 D.RAJENDRAN ADE A

71 A.Sukesh AE T 58 K.SRIJAYA PRASAD ADE A

72 A.Sumesh AE T 59 TADEPALLI SREENIVASA RAO ADE A

73 C.Ratnakar AE T 60 V.KOTI SRINIVAS ADE A

74 G. Buchaiah AE T 61 E.P.K. S.PRASAD AE A

75 J.Linganayak AE T 62 K.RAMESH AE A

76 K.Kumara Swamy AE T 63 S.DUNDY SOUBHAGYA RAO AE A

77 K.Mallaiah AE T 64 CH. RAJASEKHAR AE A

78 K.Ratnakar Reddy AE T 65 P.ARUN KUMAR AE A

79 M.Ravinder AE T 66 B.RAMANUJA DAS AEE A

80 M.Shoban Babu AE T 67 MD.JEELANI PASHA AEE A

81 M.Venu Madhv AE T 68 D.SATISH REDDY CHEMIST A

82 P.Sadanandam AE T 69 I.MOHAN SARMA ADE A

83 G. Ravinder AEE T 70 A.GOVINDAIAH AE A

84 T.Surendranath ADE T 71 K. RAVI KUMAR AE A

85 B.Surya AE T 72 M.ANANTHAIAH AE A

86 M.Nagaphani AE T 73 M.PAVAN KUMAR AE A

87 M.Santhosh AE T 74 M.SREENIVASULU AE A

88 Pranay Bhardwaj AE T 75 N.MOHAN RAO AE A

89 P.Ashok JAO T 76 P. SUDHEER AE A

77 D.VENKATESWARLU AEE A 173 D. UMAMAHESWARA RAO AE T

78 K.GURUSWAMY CHEMIST A 174 D.ASHOK BABU AE T

79 P.SUBBAIAH CHEMIST A 175 D.DEVENDER AE T

80 B.BALASUBRAHMANYAM ADE A 176 E.CHANDRA SEKHAR AE T

81 B.KAMESWARA RAO ADE A 177 G.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AE T

82 Y.SRINIVASA RAO ADE A 178 G.DHARMA RAJU AE T

83 A.RAMANA AE A 179 G.JAYARAM AE T

84 B.SRILAXMI CHEMIST A 180 G.RAVICHANDER AE T

85 A.THIRUPATHI RAO ADE A 181 G.SUDHA RANI AE T

86 B.CHALAPATHI RAO AE A 182 I.SHAKTI RAM AE T

87 CH.KRISHNA PRASAD AE A 183 K.SUJATHA AE T

88 G.RAMCHANDER RAO AE A 184 KONAKANDLA.SRINIVASA RAO AE T

89 K.RUSHESWAR RAO AE A 185 M. RAMESH AE T

90 K.SRINIVASA RAO AE A 186 M.SRINIVASA RAO AE T

91 T.SRINIVASA RAO AEE A 187 M.V.S.V. PRASAD AE T

92 B.NAGESH ADE A 188 MADAKAM SRINIVAS RAO AE T

93 V.V.VIJAYA LAKSHMI ADE A 189 MD.GOUSE PASHA AE T

94 A.RAVI BABU AE A 190 MD.ISMAIL AE T

95 D.MOHANDAS AEE A 191 MD.JABBAR AE T

96 CH.GEETHA VIJAYALAKSHMI CHEMIST A 192 N.NARAYANA AE T

97 B.SRINIVASA RAJU ADE A 193 P.ANNAPURNA AE T

98 K.R.LAXMANA RAO ADE A 194 P.LEELA AE T

99 M.VENKATA SURYANARAYANA AE A 195 P.RAMA RAO AE T

100 R.RAMA KRISHNA AE A 196 P.SRINIVASA RAO AE T

101 R.RAMAKRISHNA AEE A 197 P.VENKATA SESHAGIRI AE T

102 T.JEJINAYANA ADE A 198 S.NAGAIAH AE T

103 T.N.V.S.S.NARAYANA ADE A 199 S.SARATH BABU AE T

104 G.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AE A 200 T.KENADI AE T

105 P.YESUDAS AE A 201 T.VEERA SWAMY AE T

106 S.SIRESH AE A 202 V.PAVANI AE T

107 T.ANASUYA AE A 203 V.SUNANDA AE T

108 M.VENKAT RATNAM AEE A 204 B. NAGA RAJU AE T

109 D.RAJA RAO DM (HR) A 205 V.KRISHNA KANTH AE T

110 J.V.V.SURESH KUMAR AAE A 206 T.VENKATRAM AEE T

111 S. PRATHAP KUMAR Sub.Eng. A 207 G.SRINIVAS CHEMIST T

112 CH.BHAGYA RAJU Sub.Eng. A 208 K.RAVINDRA BABU SR. CHEMIST T

113 V.RAMA PRASANYA Sub.Eng. A 209 P.RAJA MOHAN ADE T

114 Y.Suneetha Sub.Eng. A 210 B.NANDA KISHORE AE T

115 P.JANGIL PASHA Sub.Eng. A 211 B.THIRUPATHAIAH AE T

116 CH.SRINIVASULU AAE A 212 K.SURENDER REDDY AE T

117 K.SOBHAN AAE A 213 V.RAVINDER AE T

118 M.Padma Latha CHIEF CHEMISTT 214 M.RAJU ADE T

119 P.BALA RAJU DE T 215 M.SRINIVASULU ADE T

120 P.Krishna DE T 216 S.RADHA KISHAN ADE T

121 A.AJAY SE T 217 ARUNA MUTHYALA AE T

122 S.LAXMI NARAYANA DE T 218 G.MADHUSUDHAN AE T

123 U.SUDARSANAM DE T 219 G.PRASAD AE T

124 A.RAMESH DE T 220 P.RAMULU AE T

125 K.ANANDAM DE T 221 C.SRIDHAR ADE T

126 K.SANJEEVAIAH DE T 222 D.SURESH ADE T

127 M.SIDDAIAH SE T 223 L.RAJASHEKAR ADE T

128 J.RAM KUMAR AE T 224 T.PRAVEEN KUMAR AE T

129 J.SATYANARAYANA AE T 225 U.Kistaiah AEE T

130 T.VENKATA RAMANA ADE T 226 C.RAMA KRISHNA CHEMIST T

131 CH.VENKATA KRISHNAIAH AE T 227 G.RAVI KUMAR CHEMIST T

132 M.BALA RAJ AE T 228 E.NARASING RAO AE T

133 N.SUDHA AE T 229 A.RAMESH BABU ADE T

134 S.VENKATESWARULU ADE T 230 B.RAJENDER ADE T

135 A.VIJENDER REDDY ADE T 231 E.CHANDRA MOULI ADE T

136 M.VIJAYA KUMAR ADE T 232 E.HANUMAN ADE T

137 R.ANIL KUMAR ADE T 233 J.KISNA ADE T

138 P.RAJITHA AE T 234 K.MADHU BABU ADE T

139 T. BRAHMAM AE T 235 K.SRINIVASULU ADE T

140 U.SWARNA LATHA AE T 236 N.BHASKAR ADE T

141 V.SRINIVAS AE T 237 P. THIRUPATHI ADE T

142 A.RANGAIAH ADE T 238 P.KRISHNAIAH ADE T

143 A.VENKATESWARLU ADE T 239 CH.KANNAIH AE T

144 B.JAYA RAM ADE T 240 K. YADAGIRI AE T

145 B.MURALI KRISHNA ADE T 241 M.THIRUPATI AE T

146 B.SRINIVASA RAO ADE T 242 P.JYOTHI AE T

147 CH.KUMARA SWAMY ADE T 243 P.NAGACHANDER RAJU AE T

148 D.RAMDASU ADE T 244 P.PRATAP AE T

149 J.SRINIVAS ADE T 245 T.SATYANARAYANA AE T

150 M.BALARAM ADE T 246 U.PRAVEEN AE T

151 M.NARASIMHA ADE T 247 M.VENKANNA CHEMIST T

152 M.NEHRU ADE T 248 Dr. J.P.Dheeraj Naik ACS T

153 MD.ANWAR PASHA ADE T 249 B.SRINIVAS Sub.Eng. T

154 N.JITHENDER ADE T 250 K.ANAND KUMAR AAE T

155 N.RAMBABU ADE T 251 J.RAVI JANARDHAN RAO AAE T

156 S.CHAKRAPANI ADE T 252 G.SRINIVAS Sub.Eng. T

157 S.SUNEEL ADE T 253 K.RADHIKA Sub.Eng. T

158 SK.FASIUDDIN ADE T 254 E.Ramulu Sub.Eng. T

159 V.NAGASEKAR RAO ADE T 255 A.NARASIMHA REDDY AAE T

160 V.V.KRISHNA RAO ADE T 256 A.RAVI KRISHNA AAE T

161 S.HARITHA ADE T 257 A.VENKATESWARLU AAE T

162 A.JYOTHI AE T 258 B.RADHA KRISHNA AAE T

163 A.MADHU AE T 259 B.Srinivasulu AAE T

164 A.S.NIKHILESH AE T 260 CH.PREM SAGAR RAO AAE T

165 B. MOHAN KUMAR AE T 261 CHARLA MUTHAIAH AAE T

166 B. VIJAY BHASKAR AE T 262 D.GEORGE FRANCIS AAE T

167 B.JAYA BHASKER AE T 263 G.SURESH AAE T

168 B.RAMJI AE T 264 J.SAMBASIVA RAO AAE T

169 B.RAVI AE T 265 JETHENDER AWASTHI AAE T

170 B.RAVINDRA AE T 266 K. SASHI KUMAR AAE T

171 BANOTH RAMACHANDER AE T 267 K.VENKATESWAR RAO AAE T

172 CH.YOSODA AE T 268 KANKANALA SRINIVASA RAO AAE T

269 M.BHASKAR RAO AAE T 21 T.V.Krishnaiah DE A

270 M.SURYANARAYANA AAE T 22 V.V.S.Ram Prasad DE A

271 M.VIJAYALAKSHMI AAE T 23 K.Kota.Nageswara Rao DE A

272 MD. KHASIM ALI AAE T 24 T.Srinivasa Rao DE A

273 MD.YOUSUF AAE T 25 Y.Siva kumar DE A

274 N.ASHOK KUMAR AAE T 26 V.Murali Krishna DE A

275 N.VENKATA RAMANA AAE T 27 P.Udaya Kumar DE A

276 P.SESHA SAI AAE T 28 T.Appla chary DE A

277 PADAM NAGESWARA RAO AAE T 29 I.Ravindranath DE A

278 PARUPALLY NAGESWARA RAO AAE T 30 N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, DE A

279 R.CHANDRASEKHAR AAE T 31 S.Venkateswarlu EE A

280 S.RAJA SURENDRA CHARY AAE T 32 MD.Nazeeruddin EE A

281 S.RAMAKRISHNA RAJU AAE T 33 K.Sudheer Babu SE A

282 S.SITARAMI REDDY AAE T 34 M.P.Sunder Sing SE A

283 S.SREERAMA CHANDAR RAO AAE T 35 Y.Kodanda Rama Rao SE A

284 T. ASHOK KUMAR AAE T 36 A.Srihari SE A

285 T.SRINIVAS AAE T 37 P.B.Ramji Prasad SE A

286 T.V.SUBBA RAO AAE T 38 T.Anitharam DE O

287 T.VISWESWAR RAO AAE T 39 B.Laxmaiah CE T

288 V.RAMA KRISHNA RAO AAE T 40 Smt.A.Annapurna DE T

289 Y. NARASIMHA RAO AAE T 41 P.Srinivasa Rao DE T

290 A.MADHUSUDHAN Sub.Eng. T 42 B.Bichanna DE T

291 A.NAGASRINIVASA RAO Sub.Eng. T 43 K.V.V.Satyanarayana DE T

292 A.S.R.K.L.PRASAD Sub.Eng. T 44 B.Desya DE T

293 A.VIGNA CHARY Sub.Eng. T 45 B.Suresh DE T

294 B.NAGAIAH Sub.Eng. T 46 T.Veera Swamy DE T

295 B.RAMA RAO Sub.Eng. T 47 M.Srinivasa Rao DE T

296 B.RAMBABU Sub.Eng. T 48 Ravinder kumar DE T

297 B.SADANANDAM Sub.Eng. T 49 K.Narasimha DE T

298 B.SATYANARAYANA Sub.Eng. T 50 P.Upender DE T

299 B.SEETHA RAMULU Sub.Eng. T 51 T.Rajendra Prasad DE T

300 CH.NARASIMHA RAO Sub.Eng. T 52 S.Yugapathi EE T

301 D.BALU Sub.Eng. T 53 U.Venkata Ramana DE Un

302 D.RAMA RAO Sub.Eng. T 54 D.V.S.S.L.Kantha Rao, DE Un

303 D.VENKATESWARULU Sub.Eng. T 55 V.Krishnaiah SE Un

304 G.DURESH KUMAR Sub.Eng. T 56 G.Raja sekhar M.O T

305 G.PRASANNA LAXMI Sub.Eng. T 57 P.Chandrasekhar AO A

306 G.Satish Kumar Sub.Eng. T 58 Smt.N.Uma AO A

307 G.SURESH KUMAR Sub.Eng. T 59 N.Sailaja AAO T

308 J.THULASI RAM Sub.Eng. T 60 A.Haritha AAO T

309 K.BEESHMA REDDY Sub.Eng. T 61 M.Madhusudhana Rao AO T

310 K.H.VEERARAJU Sub.Eng. T 62 G.Sujatha AAO Un

311 K.KIRAN KUMAR Sub.Eng. T 63 M.Suryanarayana AAO Un

312 K.KOTESWARA RAO Sub.Eng. T 64 Y.Gopal ADE A

313 K.MOHAN RAO Sub.Eng. T 65 A.L.Martin ADE A

314 K.VENKAT RAO Sub.Eng. T 66 D.Lakshmipathi Raju ADE A

315 K.YADAGRI Sub.Eng. T 67 T.Sudarshan Reddy ADE A

316 M.APPA RAO Sub.Eng. T 68 CH.Raja Babu ADE A

317 M.KISHOR Sub.Eng. T 69 J.Venkateswars Swamy ADE A

318 M.VENKATESWARLU Sub.Eng. T 70 G.Anand Prasad ADE A

319 MD.SAJID HAMEED BAGAN Sub.Eng. T 71 D.Srinivas ADE A

320 N. LINGA RAJU Sub.Eng. T 72 M.Hanumantha Rao ADE A

321 N.PRASADA RAO Sub.Eng. T 73 D.V.R.Vijaya Kumar ADE A

322 O.GOVINDA REDDY Sub.Eng. T 74 M.Nageshwar Rao ADE A

323 P.PURNA CHANDR Sub.Eng. T 75 B.Sheshagiri Rao ADE A

324 R.SASIKANTH Sub.Eng. T 76 V.Vijaya Babu ADE A

325 R.VENKATESWARULU Sub.Eng. T 77 P.Dhanunjaya ADE A

326 Rajesh Awasthi Sub.Eng. T 78 K.Vijaya Bhaskara Rao ADE A

327 S.VENKATESWARLU Sub.Eng. T 79 Ch.Srinivasa Rao ADE A

328 SYED ZAHUR Sub.Eng. T 80 M.S.S.Varaprasad ADE A

329 SYED.MAGUBUL Sub.Eng. T 81 B.Satya Sai Srinivas ADE A

330 T.SRINIVASA RAO Sub.Eng. T 82 S.Sambasiva Kumar ADE A

331 V.PRASAD Sub.Eng. T 83 Y.Srinivasa Rao ADE A

332 V.SIMON Sub.Eng. T 84 A.Devadanam ADE A

333 VINOD KUMAR SAHU Sub.Eng. T 85 P.Sailaja ADE A

334 Y.RAMAKIRSHNA Sub.Eng. T 86 V.R.Srinivas ADE A

335 Y.UDAYA BHASKER Sub.Eng. T 87 M.Sreenivasulu ADE A

336 Kum. V.Naga Malleswari Sub.Eng. T 88 Ch.Ranga Rao, ADE A

337 D. GOVARDHAN AAE T 89 G.Sridhar ADE A

338 ABDUL NABI Sub.Eng. T 90 P.V.Subramanyeshwara rao ADE A

339 G.BHASKAR. Sub.Eng. T 91 M.David Raju, ADE A

340 G.SRINIVASA REDDY Sub.Eng. T 92 M.V.L.N.Ravi Kumar ADE A

341 T.VENKATA SWAMY Sub.Eng. T 93 M.Rajeshwar Rao ADE A

94 B.Raju ADE A

KTPS(O&M), Paloncha, Khammam Dt. EMPLOYEES 95 V.Chinnaiah ADE A

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 96 G.Madhava Kumar ADE A

1 B.Srinivasa Rao SAO A 97 D.Rajesh Kumar ADE A

2 K.Bhaskhara Rao SAO T 98 S.Vamshe Krishna ADE A

3 E.Lakshmi Ram Naik Chief Chemist A 99 V.Venkateswara Sarma ADE A

4 G.Srinivas DE A 100 J.Subba Rao ADE A

5 T.Govinda Reddy DE A 101 S.Masthanaiah ADE A

6 J.Suryanarayana DE A 102 K.Madhusudhana Raju ADE A

7 P.V.V.Murali Mohan DE A 103 U.Ramesh babu ADE A

8 CH.Diwakar Venkar Ram DE A 104 S.Venkateswarlu ADE A

9 T.Satyanarayana DE A 105 G.George Novah ADE A

10 V.Venkateswarlu DE A 106 B.Singa Reddy ADE A

11 T.Subba Rao DE A 107 K.Chakradhar Rao ADE A

12 P.Srinivas DE A 108 S.Vidya sagar ADE A

13 P.V.Nageswara Rao DE A 109 P.Atakeswara Rao(U/S) ADE A

14 M.Muralikrishna DE A 110 V.S.Kasipathi ADE A

15 K.V.Nageswara Rao DE A 111 A.Venkateswara Rao ADE A

16 N.Siva Prasad DE A 112 S.Nirmala ADE A

17 M.Venkateswara Rao DE A 113 A.Prasad ADE A

18 M.Narahari Babu DE A 114 B.Hemalatha ADE A

19 V.Rambabu DE A 115 R.Raju ADE A

20 W.Ramesh Babu DE A 116 P.V.Satyanarayana ADE A

117 V.Srinivas ADE A 213 K.Bharatha Lakshmi AE A

118 V.Sharmila Devi AE A 214 Y.Rajasekhar AE A

119 G.Mohan Babu AE A 215 G.Deepthi AE A

120 M.Venkatesan AE A 216 M.Bhaskhara Rao AEE A

121 K.Jeevitha AE A 217 V.Pavan Kumar AEE A

122 S.Siva Sree AE A 218 K.Srinivasa Rao AEE A

123 P.Samuel Ratnam AE A 219 G.Vasudeva Rao AEE A

124 N.Sai Krishna AE A 220 B.Srinivasa Rao Chemist A

125 V.SatyaVeda Kumar AE A 221 B.Chandra Paul Chemist A

126 K.V.S.S.Devi (Tech) AE A 222 Smt.M.Kavitha Chemist A

127 P.Giri Babu AE A 223 M.Veeranna Chemist A

128 D.V.R. Vijaya Kumar AE A 224 M.V.N.M.SimhadriRao Chemist A

129 M. Hanumantha Rao AE A 225 Y.Chenchu Babu Chemist A

130 D. Srinivas AE A 226 K..K.V.Vibhushan Chemist A

131 N.Veerendra Kumar (M) AE A 227 J.Adinarayana Murthy Sr.Chemist A

132 Ch.Muralikrishna (M) AE A 228 S.VenkataPrasada Rao Sr.Chemist A

133 R.T.Ranganath AE A 229 K.Swapna AE O

134 Zaibunnisa Begum AE A 230 G.Sunitha AE T

135 K.V.S.S. Devi AE A 231 S.Sammaiah ADE T

136 K.Asha Jyothi AE A 232 N.Srinivas ADE T

137 K.Ravi Kumar Reddi (S) AE A 233 K.V.R.Chakraphani ADE T

138 A.Naga Laxmi AE A 234 V.Pavan Kumar ADE T

139 Ch.Venkata Subhadra AE A 235 S.Srinivas ADE T

140 M.Rama Rao (S) AE A 236 K.Satyam ADE T

141 R.Kesava Kumar (M) AE A 237 V.Chandra Mouli ADE T

142 V.Prem Kumar (M) AE A 238 T.Ramana ADE T

143 J. Anand Kumar AE A 239 M.Venkatanarayana ADE T

144 N.Venkateswar Rao AE A 240 G.Raja Kumar ADE T

145 K.S.S.A,.Raju AE A 241 B.Satyanarayana ADE T

146 R.Sireesha AE A 242 M.Kanaka Rao ADE T

147 M.Kiran Kumar AE A 243 K.Kiran Kumar ADE T

148 Sk.Reena AE A 244 M.Ramakrishna ADE T

149 K.Subhashini AE A 245 N.V.S.Ram Babu ADE T

150 P.Subbba Lakshmi AE A 246 K.V.Ramana ADE T

151 M.Veera Narayana AE A 247 B.Mangi Lal ADE T

152 Kum.I.Janaki (S) AE A 248 A.Ravi Kumar ADE T

153 H.Mehtob AE A 249 M.Sri Rama Murthy ADE T

154 V.Srinivasa Rao AE A 250 K.Santhaiah ADE T

155 D.V. Prasad AE A 251 P.Venkateswara Rao ADE T

156 K.Srinivas AE A 252 B.Piliya ADE T

157 B.Ravi Kumar AE A 253 T.Rama Krishna ADE T

158 N.Pushkarni (Pur-21) AE A 254 K.Chandraiah ADE T

159 Smt.A.Naga Kalyani(T1A1) AE A 255 V.Venugopala Reddy ADE T

160 K.Pranel Kumar AE A 256 V.Sreenivasa Rao ADE T

161 A. Ashoka Reddy AE A 257 D.Ramesh ADE T

162 T.Narasimha Rao AE A 258 Smt. K.Nagamani ADE T

163 K.Naga Hanumanthu AE A 259 S.Venkata Raju ADE T

164 D.Ajay Kumar (M) AE A 260 S.Sunder Rao ADE T

165 N.Pushkarni AE A 261 S.Vijaya Bhaskar ADE T

166 SK.Masthan Vali Basha AE A 262 J.Vikas ADE T

167 B.Hari AE A 263 Rajakishore ADE T

168 M.Aruna Kumari AE A 264 G.Siva kumar ADE T

169 P.Naga chaithanya AE A 265 K.Mallikarjuna Rao ADE T

170 M.Gopi Krishna AE A 266 B.Vasanth Kumar ADE T

171 B.Venu Kumar (M) AE A 267 P.Ramakrishna ADE T

172 K.Vamsi Krishna (S) AE A 268 J.Rama Rao ADE T

173 K.Sujatha Devi AE A 269 G.Manjya ADE T

174 T.Krishna DurgaPrasad AE A 270 B.Mohan Rao ADE T

175 M.Suresh AE A 271 B.Hari lal ADE T

176 B.Prasanthi AE A 272 VGK.Hari Prasad ADE T

177 E.Padmavathi AE A 273 P.Lalitha ADE T

178 Y.Sowjanya AE A 274 G.Vinod ADE T

179 D.Siva Parvathi AE A 275 K.Satyanarayana ADE T

180 N.Nalini Krishna AE A 276 B.Ramachandra Rao ADE T

181 Y.Sudha Rani AE A 277 B.Bheemya ADE T

182 S. Vamshee Krishna AE A 278 R.J.Anil Kumar ADE T

183 B.BhaktavatsalaKumar AE A 279 T.Sundar Ram Reddy ADE T

184 V.Madhu (S) AE A 280 CH.Sunithalaxmi ADE T

185 P.Guru Devi Reddy AE A 281 D.Naresh Kumar ADE T

186 U. Ramesh Babu AE A 282 M.Giri Babu ADE T

187 Kum.E.Udaya Lakshmi AE A 283 K.Chandra Sekhar ADE T

188 P.Suresh Babu AE A 284 D.Ravi kumar ADE T

189 K.Bodeyya AE A 285 B.Hathiram ADE T

190 K.Narasimha Rao AE A 286 B.Naveen Kumar ADE T

191 M.Krishna (S) AE A 287 MD.Azeez Pasha ADE T

192 Shaik.Jahangeer (S) AE A 288 S.Hari Gopala Chary ADE T

193 J.Ratna Kumari AE A 289 Abrahim Lincoln ADE T

194 R.Latha Priya Darsini AE A 290 B.Chandra Mohan Raju ADE T

195 R.Vijaya Madhavi AE A 291 G.Subrahmanyam ADE T

196 D.Veeranjani AE A 292 A.Jagadeeshwar ADE T

197 S.Poornima AE A 293 A.Ramdas ADE T

198 K.Ravi Kumar (S) AE A 294 K.Uma Devi ADE T

199 S.Poornima (Pur-42) AE A 295 V.S.Chandra Prasad ADE T

200 B.Kranthi AE A 296 B.Rajamallu ADE T

201 Y.V.Chalapathi Rao AE A 297 G.Rajender ADE T

202 B.Simhachalam AE A 298 M.Venkanna ADE T

203 M.Ramesh AE A 299 P.Santhosh ADE T

204 A. Prasad AE A 300 G.V.Ramana Rao ADE T

205 P.Kiran kumar AE A 301 K.Vijaya Kumar (M) AE T

206 P. Kiran Kumar AE A 302 J.Krishnaveni (Pur-41) AE T

207 P.Sridevi AE A 303 S. Sammaiah, AE T

208 K.Venkata Rao AE A 304 J.Rajaiah AE T

209 K.Durga SrinivasaRao AE A 305 Shailaja Latha Bhavani AE T

210 G.R.S.V.K. Appa Rao AE A 306 N.Vamshidhar AE T

211 K.Naga Malleswara Rao AE A 307 D.Ravi Kumar (S) AE T

212 M.V.V.Kishore(CS-2/Transport) AE A 308 G.Sandeep Kumar (S) AE T

309 R.Kailas (S) AE T 405 P.Sampath Kumar AE T

310 Rizwana Begum AE T 406 Y.Ravi Kumar(S) AE T

311 R.K.Chakravathi AE T 407 Md.Reshma Begum(T2A2) AE T

312 K.Hampi Ramu AE T 408 K.Ram Babu (S) AE T

313 K. Kiran Kumar AE T 409 G.Parasaram (S) AE T

314 T. Venugopal AE T 410 P.Praveen Kumar (S) AE T

315 A.Praveen AE T 411 D.Aswini AE T

316 V.Ravi Kumar AE T 412 P.Sushma Niharika AE T

317 N. Kedarnath AE T 413 T.Venkata Ramana AE T

318 J.Jyothirmayi AE T 414 A.Dhana Laxmamma AE T

319 P.Rajani AE T 415 Y.Vijaya Shanthi AE T

320 P.Santhosh Kumar (S) AE T 416 SK.Yasmeen AE T

321 P.Venu Gopal (S) AE T 417 K. Mani Ram AE T

322 B.Sujana Priya AE T 418 A. Raghupathi Naik AE T

323 Ch.Raghu AE T 419 S.Ravi AE T

324 A.Srinivas (CS-I) AE T 420 P.Raja Mohan AE T

325 S.Anil Kumar (M) AE T 421 M.Sujatha AE T

326 Ch.Ananda Kumar (OD-I) AE T 422 Ch. Sunitha Laxmi AE T

327 G.Srinivas (S) AE T 423 V.Santhosh Kumar AE T

328 O.Srinivas AE T 424 D.Sreenivasulu AE T

329 N.Triveni AE T 425 V.Sanjeeva Rao AE T

330 N.Vamshi Krishna AE T 426 P.Shanti (CS-II) AE T

331 S.Karunasri AE T 427 B. Srinu (M) AE T

332 G.Lavanya AE T 428 B. Naveen Kumar AE T

333 M.Chandra Kaladhar AE T 429 S. Hari Gopala Chary AE T

334 U.Kumara Swamy(S) AE T 430 G.Laxmi Prasad AE T

335 V.Praveen Kumar (S) AE T 431 V.Naveen AE T

336 P.Bhaskar (S) AE T 432 G.Shravan Kumar AE T

337 B.Narender(S) AE T 433 N.Ravi AE T

338 D.Suresh Kumar (S) AE T 434 P.Mallaiah AE T

339 D.Madhavi AE T 435 Md. Azeez Pasha AE T

340 T. Vishnu Charan AE T 436 P.Ashok Rao AE T

341 G.Narasimha Rao AE T 437 R.Santhosh AE T

342 B.Amar Singh AE T 438 A.Linga Murthy AE T

343 M. Venkata Narayana AE T 439 K.Gajender AE T

344 G. Siva Kumar AE T 440 B.Nandhitha AE T

345 V. Rajeshwar AE T 441 B.Balaiah AE T

346 S. Vijaya Bhaskar AE T 442 S.Praveen AE T

347 K. Mallikarjuna Rao AE T 443 R.R.K.Jadav AE T

348 D.Madhu Babu AE T 444 R.Ramakrishna Jadav AE T

349 K. Krishna Mohan AE T 445 D. Jagadeesh AE T

350 B.Prem Kumar Naik AE T 446 A. Ramesh AE T

351 G.Krishna AE T 447 J. Anand Kumar AE T

352 Ch.Gynana Prasad AE T 448 M.Phanindhar (Pur-32) AE T

353 P.Uma Shankar AE T 449 B.Ravi (M) AE T

354 M. Rama Krishna AE T 450 L.Ravi (M) AE T

355 P.Neelima(Purchase-22) AE T 451 B.Padma AE T

356 T.Brahmaji (SP-I/CS-I) AE T 452 K.Umesh AE T

357 V.Samuel (CS-II) AE T 453 M. Veerabhadra Rao AE T

358 A.Nagendhar Rao (CD-II) AE T 454 E.Kumara Swamy AE T

359 Ch.Venkat Raju (SP-II) AE T 455 E.Srinivas AE T

360 A.DhanalaxamammaT2A1) AE T 456 M. Rajesh AE T

361 B.Venkata Rao(CS-I) AE T 457 A.Sunil AE T

362 S.Krishna Reddy (M) AE T 458 R.Kranthi Kumari AE T

363 D.Yohan (M) AE T 459 M.Nagaphani AE T

364 M.Kumara Swamy (M) AE T 460 S.Hari Prasad AE T

365 G. Rangaiah AE T 461 P.Vamshi Krishna AE T

366 Kum.R.Saritha (T1A2) AE T 462 H.Kishan AE T

367 M. Laxman (S) AE T 463 M.Laxman AE T

368 V.Veeranna (Pur-31) AE T 464 M.Santhosh AE T

369 Ch.Srinivasa Rao AE T 465 P.Yakub AE T

370 SK.Afzal Pasha AE T 466 G.V. Ramana Rao AE T

371 V. Venugopala Reddy AE T 467 G. Rajender AE T

372 B. Pulya AE T 468 M.Rama Krishna Rao AE T

373 K. Prasad AE T 469 G.Venkanna AE T

374 B.Vijaya Kumar AE T 470 J.Ravi AE T

375 P.Suresh Babu AE T 471 P. Santhosh AE T

376 G. Venu AE T 472 V.Mamatha AE T

377 V.Krishna Kanth AE T 473 T.Himavathi AE T

378 M.Venkateswarlu AE T 474 Ch.Naresh (S) AE T

379 V.G.K. Hari Prasad AE T 475 K.Srinivas (S) AE T

380 M.Hari AE T 476 G.Veeranna (S) AE T

381 A.Rama kanth AE T 477 N.Srikanth AE T

382 T.Srinivasa Rao (M) AE T 478 G.Sandhya Rani AE T

383 P.Jyothi Raju (M) AE T 479 Y.Mamatha AE T

384 K.Prasad (M) AE T 480 T.Srinidhi AE T

385 K. Shankar (H2 Plant) AE T 481 B.Tulasi Bhavani AE T

386 V.Venkata Laxmi (Pur-11) AE T 482 B.Prameela AE T

387 V. Kanthaiah AE T 483 Ch.Chandrasekhar AEE T

388 G.Raghu AE T 484 K.L.N.Ravi AEE T

389 B.Ananda Kumar AE T 485 B.Muralidhar AEE T

390 B.Krishnapriya AE T 486 Kum.G.Saritha Chemist T

391 B.Praveena AE T 487 D.V.RamanaKumar Chemist T

392 M.Mallikarjun AE T 488 Smt.K.Sravanthi Chemist T

393 G.Rajender AE T 489 V.Venkatesh Chemist T

394 L.Deva AE T 490 V.Sashikanth Chemist T

395 M. Naga Raju AE T 491 S.Krishna Chemist T

396 S. Kiranmayee AE T 492 Ch.Giridhar Chemist T

397 A.Srinivas AE T 493 K.Srinivasulu Chemist T

398 B.Satish Kumar AE T 494 V.Venkateswarlu Chemist T

399 Hafeeza Sulthana AE T 495 K.Ranga Rao Chemist T

400 T.Ramadasu AE T 496 B.Narasimha Reddy Sr.Chemist T

401 T.Srinivas AE T 497 B.Rajeshwar Rao Sr.Chemist T

402 B.Sailaja AE T 498 V.Rajeshwar ADE Un

403 D.Sunitha AE T 499 M.V.Ramana Rao ADE Un

404 B.Swapna AE T 500 K.Papi Reddy AE Un

501 Smt.P.Sujatha ACS A 42 E.Durgabhavani AE A

502 Dr.D.Vijaya Suhasini ACS T 43 K.Bodaiah AE A

503 Smt.M.Basanthi ACS T 44 Y.Sreelatha AE A

504 D.L.N.Chowdary WO A 45 B.Siddha Prasad AE A

505 D. Nageshwar Rao DM(HR) T 46 V.Naveen AE A

506 D.Radha Krishna PO T 47 K.Krupaanand AEE A

507 J.Murali Mohan AAE A 48 N.Venkat Raju AEE A

508 V.Srinivasulu Reddy AAE A 49 N.Shekar Babu AEE A

509 P.Ashok Kumar Sub Er A 50 V.SSR Raju P.O A

510 K.V.Krishna Rao Sub Er A 51 M.Jojappa SSI A

511 Y.Venkateswarlu (M) AAE T 52 S.Satyanarayana SSI A

512 D.R.L.Prasad (M) AAE T 53 S.Kishan Rao SSI A

513 K.Radha Krishna (CD-II) AAE T 54 M.S.Babu Rao SSI A

514 M.Venkateswara Rao (M) AAE T 55 S.Sivaprasad SSI A

515 B.Venkatanarayana (S) AAE T 56 P.Mukalingam SSI A

516 S.Ramesh AAE T 57 G.Venkateswara Rao SSI A

517 J. Rajeswar Rao AAE T 58 K.Prakash lal SSI A

518 D.K.Surya Babu (M) AAE T 59 G.Venkateswarlu ADE T

519 M.Satish (CS-II/Cons.2) AAE T 60 D.Ramulu ADE T

520 K.Srinu AAE T 61 N.Saidulu ADE T

521 D.Anjaneyulu AAE T 62 G.Narender Reddy ADE T

522 L.Nageswar Rao AAE T 63 B.Sreenu ADE T

523 A.Amaraj Moses AAE T 64 A.Ramakrishnaiah ADE T

524 D. Venugopal AAE T 65 R.Venkjata Raghu nath ADE T

525 P.Ravinder Kumar (S) AAE T 66 M.Bala Reddy ADE T

526 P.Shankar Sub Er T 67 K.Venkateswarlu ADE T

527 A.Kanaka Raju Sub Er T 68 O.Y.Rathan Kumar ADE T

528 B.Damodara Chary Sub Er T 69 B.Chandraiah ADE T

529 D.Rama Krishna Sub Er T 70 T.Vamsikrishna ADE T

530 D.Sandeepchary Sub Er T 71 B.Raghu Naik ADE T

531 G.Ram Mohan Sub Er T 72 G.Sreedhar ADE T

532 SK.Kursheed Begum Sub Er T 73 CH. Raju ADE T

533 Sk.Mujahid Hussain Sub Er T 74 M.Kirankumar ADE T

534 K.Rupas Sub Er T 75 P.Ravinder Reddy ADE T

535 B.V.L.Prasad Rao Sub Er T 76 K.Venkat Ramaiah ADE T

536 D.Vemana Kumar Sub Er T 77 R.Sanjeeva Reddy AE T

537 K.Srinivasa Rao Sub Er T 78 V.Satya Narayana AE T

538 U.Narasimha Rao Sub Er T 79 M.Prasad AE T

539 B.Ram Kishore Sub Er T 80 Ch.Veerabadhraiah AE T

540 Ch.Srikanth Sub Er T 81 R.Santosh Kumar AE T

541 K.Srinivasa Reddy Sub Er T 82 V.Amrendra mohan AE T

542 P.M.K.Gupta Sub Er T 83 M.Janaiah AE T

543 P.Srinu Sub Er T 84 V.Sreenivas Reddy AE T

544 Syed.Nowshad Ahamad Sub Er T 85 D.V Bhaskar AE T

545 B.Ramesh Sub Er T 86 P.Dhanalakshmi AE T

546 D.Syamsunder Rao Sub Er T 87 P.Venkat Reddy AE T

547 P.Ananda Rao Sub Er T 88 B.Lingamurthy AE T

548 D. Veeranna Sub Er T 89 D.Nageswar Rao AE T

549 K. Mohan Sub Er T 90 B.Sreenivasa Raju AE T

550 M.Vasantha Rao Sub Er T 91 Y.Vanitha AE T

551 M.Daya Shankara Babu AAE Un 92 R.Shekhar AE T

552 B.Rajam Sub Er Un 93 B.Sreenivas AE T

94 A.Bhavani AE T

NSHES, Nalgonda & Guntur Districts EMPLOYEES 95 D.Prasad Naik AE T

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 96 G.Mamatha AE T

1 M.Venkateswara Rao SAO A 97 R.Pavani AE T

2 JSV Uma Maheswara Satry SE A 98 Md.Kalidha Begam AE T

3 Ch.Parumal AAO A 99 R.Chandana AE T

4 G.Srinivasa Rao ADE A 100 N.Sandeep Reddy AE T

5 Ch.Someswara Rao ADE A 101 T.Vijaya AE T

6 B.Ravishankar ADE A 102 S.Prasanna AE T

7 Ch.Srinivasa Rao ADE A 103 G.Suresh Reddy AE T

8 Ch.Satyanarayana ADE A 104 T.Ravi AE T

9 D.Naveen Kumar ADE A 105 M.Kirankumar AE T

10 D.Vijaya Kumar ADE A 106 G.Sreekanth AE T

11 G.Rama Rao ADE A 107 G.sreelatha AE T

12 S.Sreenivas ADE A 108 T.Sulakshmi AE T

13 P.V.Sudhakar Rao ADE A 109 P.Venkat ramana AE T

14 Ch.Sudhakar Reddy ADE A 110 R.Sakru AE T

15 O.Kishire Babu ADE A 111 A.Praveen AE T

16 C.Sreedhar Reddy ADE A 112 L.Sundhar Naik AEE T

17 V.Sreenivasa Rao ADE A 113 M.Vasudev ADE A

18 G.Sreeramulu ADE A 114 B.Umamaheswara Rao JAO A

19 R.D.V Prasad AE A 115 D.B.Venkateswarlu JAO A

20 Y.Muralikumar AE A 116 G.Rathnam JAO A

21 K.Ramakrishna AE A 117 KVV Gupta LDC A

22 A.Mallikarjun AE A 118 P.D.Koteswara Rao LDC A

23 N.Kishorekumar AE A 119 O.Venkateswarlu LDC A

24 B.Venkateswarlu AE A 120 P.Venkateswarlu LDC A

25 P.Chandramohan AE A 121 M.Venkateswarlu LDC A

26 y.Chiranjeevi AE A 122 G.Sunitha LDC A

27 T.V.Ramarishna AE A 123 E.Ramu LDC A

28 Smt.K.Usha AE A 124 J.Sharmila LDC A

29 N.Sreenivasulu AE A 125 T.Vijayalakshmi LDC A

30 Y.Ravikumar AE A 126 V.Sambasiva Rao SHG A

31 K.Pavan AE A 127 B.Anusha Sub-Engneer A

32 B.Vidya Sagar AE A 128 U.Ramadevi Sub-Engneer A

33 ADV Nagarajkumar AE A 129 K.Rajni Sub-Engneer A

34 Y.Sreenivasa Rao AE A 130 K.Nageswar Rao Typist A

35 K.Rajesh AE A 131 K.SV Kumar UDC A

36 Y.Suresh Reddy AE A 132 G.Amarkumar UDC A

37 D.Sudhakar AE A 133 CH.Ashokbabu UDC A

38 T.Anthony Raju AE A 134 SK Chinna babu UDC A

39 A.Nagalakshmi bhavani AE A 135 M.Sivaramakrishna UDC A

40 I.Jwalakumari AE A 136 B.Radha Krishna Murthy UDC A

41 N.Pranitha AE A 137 G.Vani UDC A

138 B.Saroja UDC A 233 B.Chandraiah PA A

139 J.Thrinath UDC A 234 T.Bapanaiah PA A

140 A.S.Saiju Sub-Engneer Kerala 235 G.Malleswara Rao PA A

141 D.Krupakar Reddy JAO T 236 G.Marianna PA A

142 J.Swamy JAO T 237 K.Srenivasarao PA A

143 Ch.Purna chandra Rao JAO T 238 K.V.Satyanarayana PA A

144 T.Premalatha LDC T 239 J.Bhaskara Rao PA A

145 T.Jaya Sub-Engneer T 240 P.suribabu PA A

146 K.VijayaKumar Sub-Engneer T 241 P.Satya narayana PA A

147 G.Vasudeva rao Sub-Engneer T 242 D.Meramma PA A

148 D.S.Aruna Kumari Sub-Engneer T 243 D.Seetharavamma PA A

149 T.Nagendra Sub-Engneer T 244 P.Satibabu PA A

150 G.Prasanth Sub-Engneer T 245 T.Hanumantha Rao PA A

151 D.Sagarika Sub-Engneer T 246 M.Yobu PA A

152 Y.Sreekanth Sub-Engneer T 247 S.R.L.V.Prasad Rao PA A

153 S.Sunikumar Sub-Engneer T 248 P.Sudhakar Rao PA A

154 J.Rajasekhar Reddy Sub-Engneer T 249 L.Satya vardhan rao PA A

155 K.G.Chandramouli Sub-Engneer T 250 S.Hanumayamma SWG/SOR A

156 D.Chandramouli Typist T 251 M.Appalanayudu SWG/SOR A

157 DevaRaju UDC T 252 B.Santhosham SWG/SOR A

158 D.Samson UDC T 253 P.Somapal Singh SWG/SOR A

159 CH.Kumara swamy UDC T 254 k.Silvamani SWG/SOR A

160 SK SAIDA SAHEB Attender A 255 P.Satya narayana Welder A

161 U.Venkatadri Attender A 256 N.Mulaswamy WM A

162 D.Satyanarayana Attender A 257 S.K.Saleema Bee Attender T

163 K.Appalanayudu Attender A 258 P.Sreenivasa Rao Attender T

164 P.Koteswaramma Attender A 259 J.Lakshma Fitter T

165 M.Lazar Attender A 260 r.Saidulu Fitter T

166 S.K. Shafi Attender A 261 Md.Moulana FM T

167 G.Kumari Attender A 262 G.Mahesh FM-I T

168 P.moulali Attender A 263 A.Paramesh FM-I T

169 N.Prasada Rao Attender A 264 N.Narasimulu FM-IV T

170 T.Gopaiah Attender A 265 Md.Ibrahim Shareef FM-IV T

171 V.Sivanarayana reddy Fireman A 266 P.Bhikshmaiah FM-IV T

172 P.Shankaraiah Fireman A 267 M.Badhu FM-IV T

173 R.Brammaiah Fireman A 268 Ch.Bakkaiah FM-IV T

174 R.Adinarayana Fitter A 269 N.Venkateswaralu FM-IV T

175 G.V.Papasatri FM-I A 270 Md.Anwar FM-IV T

176 S.Sasidhran Pillai FM-I A 271 T.Satyanarayana FM-IV T

177 S.K. Meera Saheb FM-I A 272 P.Johney HVD T

178 S.K.Kanna shaeb FM-I A 273 B.Bhiksh Naik JPA T

179 GVG Krishna Murthy FM-I A 274 A.Thirupathamma JPA T

180 Y.B.R. Prasad FM-IV A 275 Y.Roopa JPA T

181 S.V.Nanaji Rao FM-IV A 276 Md.Gouse Mohinuddin JPA T

182 P.Anjaneyulu FM-IV A 277 D.Penchalaiah JPA T

183 S.Sudharshan Rao FM-IV A 278 R.Shankar JPA T

184 Y.Antony FM-IV A 279 G.Janardhan JPA T

185 K.Venkateswara Rao FM-IV A 280 D.Devula JPA T

186 PJB Joseph FM-IV A 281 M.Nagaiah JPA T

187 Y.Anandkumar FM-IV A 282 I.Rajeswari JPA T

188 G.J.Sundhar Rao FM-IV A 283 J.Shyam kumar JPA T

189 B.Appalaram FM-IV A 284 B.Srenivasulu JPA T

190 Md.Jalal FM-IV A 285 J.Krishna LV Driver T

191 P.Naveen Babu FM-IV A 286 B.Narasimha Raju LV Driver T

192 T.Sreenivasulu FO A 287 D.Satyanarayana LVD T

193 P.Veladri HVD A 288 G.Krishna Mazdoor T

194 K.Rama Rao HVD A 289 S.K.Saidamma Mazdoor T

195 P.Apparao JPA A 290 C.Narasamma Mazdoor T

196 A.Satyam JPA A 291 G.Sanddamma Mazdoor T

197 P.Penchalaiah JPA A 292 D.Ammappa Mazdoor T

198 P.Paravathi JPA A 293 T.Anathamma Mazdoor T

199 B.Loordamma JPA A 294 M.Mangamma Mazdoor T

200 T.Sreenivasa Rao JPA A 295 D.ramulamma Mazdoor T

201 K.rajesh JPA A 296 G.rangamma Mazdoor T

202 D.Mallikarjuna JPA A 297 M.Lakshmamma Mazdoor T

203 A.Rajababu JPA A 298 G.Mallamma Mazdoor T

204 S.Lakshmamma JPA A 299 R.Saroja Mazdoor T

205 B.Manga JPA A 300 R.Kamala Mazdoor T

206 B.Surajchand JPA A 301 R.Dole Mazdoor T

207 S.Edukondalu LV Driver A 302 R.Suhali Mazdoor T

208 M.Sambhasiva rao LV Driver A 303 A.Jankri Mazdoor T

209 D.Ramu Mazdoor A 304 A.Bhaju Mazdoor T

210 P.Penchalaiah Mazdoor A 305 R.Pichhamma Mazdoor T

211 J.Paravathi Mazdoor A 306 S.Lingamma Mazdoor T

212 G.Lakshmi Mazdoor A 307 B.Venkatrathnam Mech-I T

213 K.Vazramma Mazdoor A 308 B.Nagaraju PA T

214 P.Rajamma Mazdoor A 309 T.Venkateswarlu PA T

215 G.Chinnamma Mazdoor A 310 J.arjun Rao PA T

216 P.Govindu Mazdoor A 311 R.Muthaiah PA T

217 B.Appalanarasmma Mazdoor A 312 D.Yadaiah PA T

218 S.K.bibhi Mazdoor A 313 M.Venkateswarlu PA T

219 K.Guruvulu Mazdoor A 314 S.A.Khadar PA T

220 D.Sreenivasa Rao Mazdoor A 315 P.Balaramulu PA T

221 B.Seetharamulu Mazdoor A 316 M.Chandraiah PA T

222 Y.Chennamma Mazdoor A 317 S.Malla Reddy PA T

223 B.Ramulamma Mazdoor A 318 M.Narasimha PA T

224 J.Mariyamma Mazdoor A 319 K.Deshkumar PA T

225 A.Somulamma Mazdoor A 320 M.Saibaba PA T

226 B.Anjamma Mazdoor A 321 G.Ramlamma PA T

227 M.Sivashankar Rao Mech-I A 322 M.Ramachandraia PA T

228 B.Lakshman Rao Mestry-I A 323 G.Satyanarayana PA T

229 G.Satyanadam PA A 324 K.Venkat Ramana PA T

230 M.Ratna Raju PA A 325 J.Swamy PA T

231 K.Anjaneyulu PA A 326 M.Yasaiah PA T

232 K.Venkat reddy PA A 327 P.Padmavathi PA T

328 S.Nana Saheb SWG/SOR T 7 M.Sreedhar ADE T

329 S.Chennamma SWG/SOR T 8 L.Mohan ADE T

330 N.Lalaiah SWG/SOR T 9 M.Kishore Kumar ADE T

331 Abdul Sulthana Begum SWG/SOR T 10 J.Chandan Singh ADE T

332 Ch.Annathamma SWG/SOR T 11 K.Srinvasa Rao AE A

333 K.Padma Turner T 12 K.Rambabu AE A

334 P.Krishna WM T 13 B.Murali AE T

335 P.Saidulu WM T 14 K.Ravi AE T

336 N.Ramulu WM T 15 L.Srinvas AE T

337 N.ramulu WM T 16 K.Sreekanth AE T

338 N.Guruvaiah JPA T 17 K.Satish Kumar AE T

339 Ch.Krishna DE A 18 M.kavita AE T

340 Md.Ibrahim DE A 19 K.Anitha AE T

341 D.Veerababu DE A 20 G.Vijay Kumar AEE T

342 S.Venkatappaiah DE T 21 Govind Raj AO T

343 M.Satyanarayana EE T 22 K.Vinuth DE A

23 K.Jagan Mohan Rao EE A

PJHEP, Mehaboobnagar District EMPLOYEES 24 MH Rahman FM Gr.I A

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 25 K.L.Naga Raju FM Gr.IV A

1 T.Radha Krishna Murthy AAO A 26 Md.Rafeeque FM Gr.IV T

2 Krishnaiah JAO A 27 K.Gangadhar FM Gr.IV T

3 Chalapathi Rao JAO A 28 A.V.Srinivas Rao Foreman Gr.IV A

4 Venkata Chary JAO T 29 S.Laxmi GS T

5 Kavitha JAO T 30 Irfana Begum GS T

6 Prasad LDC A 31 N.Latha GS T

7 Shiva Rama Krishna SAO A 32 T.V.Prasad Rao JAO A

8 Satish Babu UDC T 33 SK.Jamal Basha JAO A

9 Shekhar UDC T 34 D.Srinvias JAO T

10 Sreenivasa Reddy UDC A 35 S.Chandraiah JPA T

11 Khaja Nasiruddin UDC T 36 B.Muttaiah JPA T

12 S.Rupesh Kumar ADE A 37 C.Bhoomaiah JPA T

13 A.R.Kiran Kumar ADE A 38 D.Bala Krishna JPA T

14 M.Sunil Kumar ADE A 39 Sk.Khadar Baba JPA T

15 Veeresh Raju ADE A 40 T.Vishnu Murthy JPA T

16 Rajesh ADE A 41 B.Vinod Kumar JPA T

17 B.Giri Babu ADE A 42 O.V.Kiran Kumar JPA T

18 K.V.Narsaiah ADE A 43 K.Nagarjuna JPA T

19 K.Prabhajkar ADE T 44 A.Srinivas JPA T

20 G.V.Anand Kumar ADE T 45 Syed Azeemuddin LVD T

21 T.Sundara Rao AE A 46 J.Rajesh LVD T

22 Ch.Ramachandra Reddy AE T 47 Md.Akbar LVD T

23 A.Ravi Shankar AE T 48 A.Laxmi Mazdoor T

24 T.Madhava Chary AE T 49 S,Gangu Mazdoor T

25 G.Rajesh AE T 50 V.Muttamma Mazdoor T

26 B.Prathibha AE T 51 Haneefa Begum Mazdoor T

27 Nazia Begum AE T 52 Ch.Salaman OS T

28 M.Pavithra AE T 53 Md. Mustafa OS T

29 V.Saritha AE T 54 V.Kiran Kumar OS T

30 G.Ramachary AE T 55 Ch.V.Ramana PA A

31 B.V.Ramana AE A 56 J.Chandra Sekar PA T

32 A.Prakash AE T 57 M.Prabhakar PA T

33 M.Venkata Ramesh AE A 58 G.Gangadhar PA T

34 R.Anjaneyulu AE A 59 B.Mallaiah PA T

35 M.Sreenivasulu AE A 60 G.Keshava Swamy SE A

36 P.V.Ramana AE A 61 G,.Balaraju SSI T

37 G.Sudha Rani AE T 62 L.Subhadramma Sub Engineer T

38 K.Sunitha AE T 63 Syed Shoukath UDC T

39 p.Jayaram Reddy AEE A 64 A.Chandra Sekar UDC T

40 M.G.Prasad Reddy AEE A

41 M.Srinivasa DE A Nizamsagar Mini Hydel Plant EMPLOYEES

42 B.Raghu Ram DE A S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

43 Murali Mohan EE A 1 K.Srikanth ADE T

44 A.Prabhakar Reddy SE T 2 G.Laxmi Narayana AE A

45 Madaiah Attender A 3 O.Naga Raju AE A

46 Rambhupal Reddy PA T 4 S.Sowmya AE T

47 Bhaskar PA A 5 A.Lokanandam FM Gr.IV A

48 Susheela PA T 6 D.Ramadas FM Gr.IV A

49 Suresh Babu ASO A 7 V.Bhadraiah FM Gr.IV T

8 Md. Gaffar FM Gr.IV T

LJHEP, Mehaboobnagar District EMPLOYEES 9 P.Eshwaraiah FM Gr.IV T

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 10 Md. Naseer FM Gr.IV T

1 Sreenivasa Rao SE A 11 Satyamma GS T

2 Rambhadra Raju EE A 12 Sk.Sultan Mohiuddin JPA A

3 Ramana Murthy EE A 13 K.Chitti Babu JPA A

4 Y.Sreenivasulu Reddy AEE A 14 C.Venkateshwarlu JPA T

5 Ch. Ramesh AEE T 15 Fakeer Pasha JPA T

6 E.Nageshwar Reddy AEE A 16 V.Vijay Kumar JPA T

7 S.Ramakrishna Reddy AEE T 17 Md.Ghouse Mohiuddin JPA T

8 J.Bharath Kumar Reddy AEE A 18 Md. Iqbal JPA T

9 B.Pavan Kumar ADE T 19 G.Durgaiah JPA T

10 G.Laxmi Narayana AE T 20 Abdul Dayam LVD T

11 M.Gopal AE A 21 Nayeema Begum OS T

12 R.Chandulal AE T 22 Md.Sajid Ali PA T

13 B.Jagadeeshwar AE T 23 B.V.S.Prakash SHG T

14 G.Raja Reddy AE A 24 G.Sreechand Sub Engiener T

15 Mahaboob Bhasha AE A

16 S.Venkateshwara Rao AE T Singur Minihydel Power Plant EMPLOYEES


Pochampad Power House EMPLOYEES 1 M.Mahankala Rao AAE A

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 2 K.Prabhakar Rao AAE A

1 M.Suresh Kumar AAE T 3 N.Yakhu Nayak ADE T

2 Nagireddy Ravi ADE A 4 D.Harita AE A

3 E.V.Ravi Kumar ADE A 5 M.Koteshwara Rao AE A

4 B.Raja Narsaiah ADE T 6 K.N.Narsimha Rao AE A

5 V.Gangadhar ADE T 7 P.Vasanta Kumari AE T

6 D.Krishna ADE T 8 K.Meghana AE T

9 M.Soujanya AE T 3 T.Ajay Kumar JPA T

10 T.Rama Krishna AE A 4 M.Venkateshwarlu JPA T

11 K.Ifrahim AE T 5 A.Rambabu JPA T

12 K.Sammaiah AE T 6 B.Venkanna JPA T

13 M.Kishore Kumar JPA A 7 Sk.Gouse JPA T

14 Md. Jahingir JPA T 8 S.Krishna Reddy JPA T

15 Ch.Sharabaiah JPA T 9 P.Guravaiah JPA T

16 Md.Ifthequar Ali JPA T 10 B.Vishwanatham JPA T

17 D.Anantha Ramulu JPA T 11 A.Gandhi PA T

18 T.Shivaiah JPA T 12 N.Venkata Ramana PA T

19 B.Anjaiah JPA T

20 N.Laxmamma JPA T SLBHES EMPLOYEES

21 Hussain Sab JPA T S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region

22 V.Raja Mani JPA T 1 L.Thirupathi ADE A

23 K.Chandraiah PA T 2 V.Ashokkumar ADE A

24 P.Ashok PA T 3 Ch.Srenivasa Chary ADE A

25 S.Sugunakar PA T 4 J.Pakhirrao ADE T

26 J.Srinvasu PA A 5 K.V.Nageswararao ADE A

27 P.Mallaiah PA T 6 E.Bhimi Reddy ADE A

28 G.Anjaneyulu PA T 7 D.Nayan Kumar ADE A

29 N.Venkata Rao PA T 8 Ch.Sambashiva Rao ADE A

9 B.Uday Kumar ADE A

Pdpally Mini Hydel Plants EMPLOYEES 10 D.Santosh AE T

S.NO Name of the Employee Designation Region 11 G.V.Ramana AE A

1 TVS Ramesh AAE A 12 J.G.Thikkaiah AE A

2 G.Nagaender AAE T 13 K.Jagadish Babu AE T

3 E.Yellaiah AAE T 14 K.Pramodkumar AE T

4 A.Rajesham ADE T 15 M.Satyanarayana AE A

5 L.Mohan ADE T 16 M.Upender AE T

6 J.Bheemaiah ADE T 17 M.N.Vishweshwara Reddy AE A

7 S.Ganesh Parthu AE T 18 N.Rajendra Prasad AE T

8 B.Dasharatham AE T 19 P.Srinivas AE T

9 Tahfeel Ahmed AEE T 20 P.Rahim Khan AE A

10 K.Sadguna Kumar DE A 21 S.Aarathi AE A

11 G.Shankar JPA T 22 S.Jangaiah AE T

12 P.Durgaiah JPA T 23 T.Vara Prasad AE A

13 P.Mallesham JPA T 24 T.Venugopal Reddy AE A

14 Y.Shankar JPA T 25 V.Shoban Babu AE T

15 K.Samuel JPA T 26 K.Balaiah AE A

16 E.Gattaiah JPA T 27 M.Ravinder AE T

17 N.Laxman s/o Narsaiah JPA T 28 M.V.Prabhakar AE A

18 G.Satyanarayana JPA T 29 R.V.Ramana AE A

19 Md.Liyaquat Ali JPA T 30 N.Srinivas AE A

20 K.Narsaiah JPA T 31 G.Prasad Rao AE T

21 M.Raja Narsaiah JPA T 32 K.Prabhakar Verma AE A

22 K.Chanda Rao JPA T 33 B.Deepthi AE T

23 A.Kistaiah JPA T 34 B.Srinivasulu AE T

24 N.Laxman s/o Mallaiah JPA T 35 Ch.Murali Krishna AE A

25 T.V.Siva Rao JPA T 36 Ch.Nagamani AE T

26 M.Ramesh JPA T 37 A.Swetha AE T

27 Syed Farroque JPA T 38 P.Vijay Babu AE A

28 A.Venkata Rao JPA T 39 M.Vinay Kumar AE T

29 M.Madhava Rao JPA T 40 B.Bhanu Prakash AE T

30 N.Venkateshwarlu JPA T 41 P.Naresh AE T

31 Mahboob Pasha JPA T 42 B.Siva Shankar AE A

32 S.Srinivas JPA T 43 R.Sujatha AE A

33 D.Adi Narayana JPA T 44 B.Srinivasa Rao AE A

34 B.Biksha JPA T 45 L.Pramod Kumar AE T

35 B.Sreedhar JPA T 46 K.Krishna AE T

36 Md. Mazahruddin JPA T 47 K.Surya Kala AE T

37 P.Satya Narayana JPA T 48 R.Swathi AE T

38 B.Satya Narayana JPA T 49 M.Ramesh Babu AE A

39 K.Venkata Narayana JPA T 50 D.Venkat Reddy AE T

40 B.Bala Krishna JPA T 51 M.Nanda Kumar Reddy AE A

41 G.Murali Krishna JPA T 52 C.Swapna AE T

42 P.Pentaiah JPA T 53 B.Madan Mohan Reddy AE T

43 K.Venkat Narayana JPA T 54 M.Venkata Rao AE A

44 S.Seshagiri Rao JPA T 55 P.Krishna Dev Yadav AE T

45 K.Laxmaiah Mazdoor T 56 K.Pavani AE T

46 Syed Sattar Mazdoor T 57 B.Madhuri AE T

47 BHC Prasaad Mazdoor T 58 Y.Sowmya AE A

48 Ch.Arjuna Rao Mazdoor T 59 M.V.Chennaiah AE A

49 T.Ramaiah Mazdoor T 60 Samuel CE A

50 G.Laxaman Mazdoor T 61 B.Sreedhar DE A

51 M.Venkanna Mazdoor T 62 P.PavanKumar DE A

52 N.Mukteshwara Rao PA A 63 GKV Santhosh Kumar DE T

53 G.Venkateshwarlu PA T 64 KV Raja Rao DE T

54 K.Prabhakar PA T 65 G.Vijayakirankumar DE T

55 P.Linga Reddy PA T 66 M.Venkatramana DE A

56 Ch.Srinvas Reddy PA T 67 P.Vijayababu DE A

57 K.Venkati PA T 68 K.Madhukar Paul DE A

58 K.Narsingam PA T 69 G.Vijaya Kirankumar DE A

59 K.Ravinder Reddy PA T 70 M.Venkata Ramana DE A

60 S.Kumara Swamy PA T 71 P.Vijaya Babu DE A

61 B.Srinvas PA T 72 K.Madhukar Paul DE A

62 K.V.V.Satya Srinivas Sub Engineer A 73 S.Sreedhar EE T

63 M.Hari Kishan Sub Engineer T 74 V.Kisan EE A

64 B.Ramesh Sub Engineer T 75 V.Kishan EE T

65 R.Ramesh Sub Engineer T 76 P.Ratnakar SE A

66 P.Santosh Sub Engineer T 77 P.Rathnakar SE T

78 G.Ramana Kumar Sub Engr T

Palair Mini Hydel Plant EMPLOYEES


1 A.Lachaiah ADE T

2 G.Srikanth AE T

Annexure-20

Annexure-21

Annexure-22

Annexure - 22

Agricultural Services, Connected Load and Total System Losses

S.No. District UnitAgricultural

including RESCOs

Total system

losses (all categories)

1 2 3 8

EPDCL

1 SRIKAKULAM 10.91

a) Services Connected during 2008-09 Nos. 777

b) Services as on 31-03-09 Nos. 23741

c) Connected Load as on 31-03-09 KW 53627

2 VIZIANAGARAM 7.06




3 VISAKHAPATNAM 6.39




4 EAST GODAVARI 8.31




5 WEST GODAVARI 9.14




TOTAL EPDCL 8.08




6 KRISHNA 12.74




GUNTUR 12.82




8 PRAKASAM 13.83




9 NELLORE 14.11




10 CHITTOOR 14.67




11 CUDDAPAH 12.85




TOTAL SPDCL 13.52




12 ANANTAPUR 14.42




13 KURNOOL 16.27




14 MAHABOOBNAGAR 18.74




15 NALGONDA 14.86




16 MEDAK 14.97




17 RANGAREDDY DISTRICT 13.83




18 HYDERABAD 20.90




TOTAL CPDCL 16.35




19 WARANGAL 15.40




20 KARIMNAGAR 15.75




21 KHAMMAM 12.61




22 NIZAMABAD 21.61




23 ADILABAD 11.50




TOTAL NPDCL 15.90




TOTAL FOR A.P.STATE 14.39




Annexure-23

Agricultural Sales Approved By APERC, Tariff Order 2009-10, Table-64

Annexure-24

Annexure-25



(In Four Volumes)

Demand for

Telangana State

VOLUME – IV

POWER SECTOR