Telangana State, Andhra Pradesh fight over rights

Hyderabad: The dispute over sharing of state-level institutions has flared up again. In the latest incident, Telangana employees locked the office of the chief engineer of the AP Tribal Welfare Corporation.

The delay in the division of state-level corporations and institutions listed in the 9th and 10th Schedules of the AP Reorganisation Act is deepening the differences between AP and Telangana. Both the governments have complained against each other to the Centre.

The Centre constituted a committee headed by retired IAS officer Sheela Bhide to bifurcate the entities. The committee has just a month left to complete the process and the Centre has said it will not extend its tenure.

Officials of the both states are sceptical that the committee will complete its job in time, having witnessed the imbroglio over the bifurcation of employees and All India Service (IAS) officers.

The bifurcation Act said that state-level institutions will continue to provide facilities to the both the states for one year. But in some incidents, both governments have fought for control over these institutions.

Trouble started when the Telangana government appointed a director-general to the National Academy of Construction. The AP government appointed its own DG to the corporation but he was not allowed to enter office by Telangana employees. In a tit-for-tat strategy, the AP government diverted funds which belonged to the undivided state, to Vijayawada. Following this, Telangana wrote to banks not to release any funds to AP.

Both governments suffered financially after the accounts were frozen. They then came to an understanding and sent a joint letter to the banks requesting that the funds be released.

After some time, Telangana labour department officials locked the rooms allotted to AP officials in the commissionerate. A similar coup had happened earlier in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission office.

The Ninth Schedule of the bifurcation Act lists 89 corporations and companies, while the Tenth Schedule lists 107 state-level institutions. Most of them are located in Hyderabad.

The Telangana government has started constituting its own bodies to state-level institutions, which the AP government is objecting to. AP says that without an agreement between the two states or without being allotted by the Centre, attempts to appropriate these institutions on location basis would be unjust, unfair and irregular.

The Telangana government says these institutions belong to them and only services would be provided to AP. The AP government’s argument is that these institutions were built over five decades and the successor state has every right on them. The Centre, meanwhile, watches.

Same legislation, different sections:

The AP and Telangana state governments quote different sections of the State Reorganisation Act to demand control over state-level institutions. The Telangana government’s argument is that most of these institutions are located in Hyderabad and it belongs to them and they will only provide services to Andhra Pradesh.

The Telangana government quotes Section 75 of the AP Reorgani-sation Act, which states that the Telangan and AP governments shall “in respect of the institutions specified in the Xth Schedule to this Act, located in that state, continue to provide facilities to such people of the other state...”

The Telangana government cites the examples of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and others, where the institutions devolved to the state where they are located. The AP government says Section 75 deals with provision of services only.  AP’s contention is that the sharing of assets and liabilities is under Part 6 and is covered by Section 64.

Section 64 reads: “The benefit or burden of any asset or liability of the existing state of Andhra Pradesh... shall pass to the state of Andhra Pradesh in the first instance, subject to such financial adjustment as may be agreed upon between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana or in default of such agreement as the Central government may by order direct.” AP government says that in Jharkhand and others, the institutions remained with the original state; they never had a common capital.