Sri Krishna Commission TRS Full Report

To
Shri Vinod K. Duggal

Member Secretary
Committee for Consultations on
the Situation in Andhra Pradesh
Government of India
Room No.248, Vigyan Bhavan Annexe
Moulana Azad Road
New 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 1 st 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”.
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 SRC

Ayyadevara 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.”)
“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 22 nd 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 29 th 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 - I
Revenue Receipts of Andhra and Telangana
from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968
(Rs. In Lakhs)
% of % of % of
S.No. Year Andhra Telangana Total
Total Total Total
1 1956 - 57 1,450.01 57.00 1,093.88 43.00 2,543.89 100

2 1957 - 58 3,987.84 63.98 2,244.79 36.02 6,232.63 100
3 1958 - 59 4,085.05 60.50 2,667.18 39.50 6,752.23 100
4 1959 - 60 4,743.30 57.88 3,451.10 42.12 8,194.40 100
5 1960 - 61 5,176.53 60.69 3,352.36 39.31 8,528.89 100
6 1961 - 62 4,766.00 55.57 3,810.83 44.43 8,576.83 100
7 1962 - 63 6,027.51 57.22 4,506.55 42.78 10,534.06 100
8 1963 - 64 7,567.08 59.78 5,091.79 40.22 12,658.87 100
9 1964 - 65 7,780.57 59.14 5,375.91 40.86 13,156.48 100
10 1965 - 66 7,769.37 56.07 6,087.29 43.93 13,856.66 100
11 1966 - 67 8,681.33 55.21 7,044.00 44.79 15,725.33 100
12 1967 - 68 9,866.16 59.48 6,720.47 40.52 16,586.63 100
123,346.9
Total 71,900.75 58.29 51,446.15 41.71 0 100
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 Andhra
from 1-11-1956 to 31-3-1968
(Rs. In Lakhs)
% of Revenue
Surplus Transferred
Transferred
Year Receipts Expenditure
to Andhra to Andhra
1956 -57 1,093.88 644.58 449.30 41.07
1957- 58 2,244.79 1,896.67 348.12 15.51
1958- 59 2,667.18 2,242.69 424.49 15.92
1959- 60 3,451.10 2,598.16 852.94 24.72
1960- 61 3,352.36 3,000.34 352.02 10.50
1961- 62 3,810.83 3,381.37 429.46 11.27
1962- 63 4,506.55 3,837.69 668.86 14.84
1963- 64 5,091.79 4,228.95 862.84 16.95
1964- 65 5,375.91 4,764.70 611.21 11.37
1965- 66 6,087.29 5,555.39 531.90 8.74
1966- 67 7,044.00 6,376.45 667.55 9.48
1967- 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 31 st 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 31 st 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:
Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)

Region
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:
Year-Wise Plan Expenditure (Rupees in Crores)
S.N
Region
o 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 – V
Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income
Excluding Hyderabad
Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)

S.
Region 2006-
No 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
07(Jan/07)
2796 3494 3702 3690
1. Andhra (30.75%) (38.45%) (34.78%) (34.26%)
730 867 1004 987
2. Rayalaseema (8.02%) (9.54%) (9.43%) (9.16%)
Total of 3526 4361 4706 4677
Andhra & (38.77%) (47.99%) (44.21%) (43.42%)
Rayalaseema
4725 5935 6093
3. Telangana 5565(61.23%) (52.01%) (55.79%) (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 – VI
Region wise Brake up of Revenue Income
Including Hyderabad
S. Region Year-Wise Revenue (Rupees in Crores)
No
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(Jan/07)
1. Total of 3526 4361 4706 4677
Andhra & (24.05%) (25.06%) (23.12%) (23.28%)
Rayalaseem
a
2. Total of
Telangana 10660 13036 15643 15412
with Head (75.95%) (74.94%) (76.88%) (76.72%)
Quarters
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 Plan Excess(+) or

Income Expenditure 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 – VIII
Region-Wise Breakup of Sales Tax Collections
S.N Source:
Region Collection Percent of Total
o Directorate
of Economics
and 2000-01 Statistics,
(Rs in Lakhs) Govt. of
AP;
1 Andhra & Rayalaseema 139,843.33 24.38% Statistical
Abstracts
2 Telangana 433,796.29 75.62%
of the Years
concerned
3. AP Total 573,639.62 100%
2003-04
(Rs in Lakhs)
1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 179,211.75 23.48%
2. Telangana 583,902.25 76.52%
3. AP Total 763,114.00 100%
2005-06
(Rs in crores)
1. Andhra & Rayalaseema 206,983.75 24.26%
2. Telangana 646,370.94 75.74%
3. AP Total 853,354.69 100%
Table – IX
Excise Collections in Telangana vis-à-vis the Total Collections in the

State
(Rs. In Crores)
S.No Year Total Collections Collections in % Of
(AP) Telangana Telangana
1 2008-09 5753.43 4077.45 70.86%
2. 2007-08 4056.86 2966.13 73.11%
3. 2005-06 3436.63 2460.63 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 –X
Share of Sales Tax and Excise Collections in the Total Revenue from
State’s Own Taxes
(Rs. In Crores)
S.No Year Total Share of ST & % Of Total

Excise Tax
Collections (AP) Revenue
1 2008-09 33358 27605 82.75%
2. 2007-08 28794 23067 80.11%
3. 2006-07 23926 18904 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.
Region No. of Teachers Actual % Entitlement %
No
Andhra 8828 70.5 59.31

1.
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)
Grant-in-Aid(in Actual % Entitlement %

S. No. Region
Rupees)
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)
Per Capita
S. Block Grant
Region University
No
(In Rupees)
Andhra I. Andhra 35,500
II. Nagarjuna 22,700
1.

III. Sri Venkateswara 37,500

IV. Sri Krishna Devaraya 25,000
30,175
Avarage per capita
2 i. Osmania 17,400
Telangana
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
No. of Seats
S. Total Andhra % of Entitle Telangana % of Entitlement
Courses
No. (AP) Total ment Total %
%
18,00
1 Medicine 0 1200 66.67 59.31 600 33.33 40.69
Engineeri
2 ng 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 77,897.33

97.23
2. Telangana 2,223.14
2.77
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 12,236.42

93.79
2. Telangana 809.72
6.21
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 Andhra % of Entitlement Telangana % of Entitlement
Loan (AP) Share Total % Share Total %
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 Andhra % of Entitlemen Telangana % of Entitlement
(AP) Share Total t% Share Total %
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”.
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)
Literacy Rate (%)
Region Persons Males Females

S. No
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

SCs 47.60 66.60 42.50
1.
Andhra
STs 38.40 47.40 29.30
SCs 47.10 58.30 35.60
2. Telangana
STs 33.30 44.50 21.60
SCs 63.50 63.50 43.40
Andhra Pradesh
STs 37.00 47.70 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 Coastal Andhra 23.69
2 Rayalaseema 13.41
3 Telangana 62.90
Andhra Pradesh 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 %
Andhra 8828 70.5 59.31

2.
Telangana 3709 29.50 40.69
3.
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)
Region Grant-in-Aid Actual % Entitlement %

S. No.
(in Rupees)
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 %
Andhra
1. Government 4588 49.57 59.31
Aided 1578 79.98
Telangana
2.
Government 4668 50.43 40.69
Aided 395 20.02
Andhra Pradesh
Government 9256 100 100
Aided 1973 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 University

2. Dr. BR Ambedkar Open University
3. Potti Sriramulu Telugu University
4. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, JNTU
5. Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences
6. 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. Region University Per Capita Block

No Grant
(In Rupees)
Andhra I. Andhra 35,500

II. Nagarjuna
III. Sri Venkateswara 22,700
IV. Sri Krishna
Devaraya 37, 500
25,000
I. Osmania 17,400
Telangana II. Kakatiya
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) 150
3. Guntur Medical College (Guntur)
4. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of medical 150
Sciences (Srikakulam)
5. Siddhartha Medical College (Vijayawada) 150
6. Sri Venkateswara Medical College (Tirupathi)
7. Government Medical College (Kurnool) 100
8. Government Medical College (Ananthapur)
9. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (Cudappa)
100
150
150
100
150
Total Seats 1200
% of Total Seats 66.67
% of Entitlement 59.31
II. Telangana:
1. Osmania Medical College (Hyderabad)

2. Gandhi Medical College (Hyderabad) 200
3. Kakatiya Medical College (Warangal)
4. Ragiv Gandhi Institute of medical Sciences (Adilabad) 150
150
100
Total Seats 600
% of Entitlement 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 Actual %

Entitlement %
Seats
i. Andhra:
a. Government Dental College 40

(Vijayawada)
b. Government Dental College 100

(Cudappa)
Total 140 77.78 59.31
ii. Telangana:
a. Government Dental College 40 22.22 40.69

(Hyderabad)
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: 410
1. Andhra University Engineering College (Visakhapatnam)
2. JNTU (Kakinada) 250
3. JNTU College of Engineering (Vijayanagaram)
4. JNTU ( Ananthapur) 300
5. JNTU College of Engineering (Pulivendula)
6. School of Engineering and Technology, Women’s 300
University (Tirupathi)
7. SV University College of Engineering (Tirupathi) 300
8. SKD College of Engineering (Ananthapur)
9. Yogi Vemana University College of 240
Engineering(Poddatur)
10. College of Agricultural Engineering (Ananthapur )
11. College of Food Sciences and Technology (Pulivendula)
12. Dairy Technology Programme (Tirupathi) 260
180
300
45
20
20
Total 2625
Entitlement % 59.31
II. Telangana:
1. JNTU ( Hyderabad)
2. Osmania University College of Engineering (Hyderabad) 290
3. Osmania University College of Technology (Hyderabad)
4. Kakatiya University College of Engineering (Kothagudem) 320
5. JNTU College of Engineering (Karimnagar)
6. Dairy Technology Programme ( Kamaraddy) 100
105
300
20
Total 1135
Entitlement % 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 acco-
mmodation 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 1 st 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.
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
Persons From
TOTAL Persons from
Positions ANDHRA &
Number TELANGANA
RAYALASEMA
No one from
Telangana has
been appointed
since the
Advocate General 1 1
formation of AP
State
No one from
Telangana has
been appointed
since the
formation of AP
1 State 1
Public Prosecutor
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.
FAQs
Frequently 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 SAMITHI

Views 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. Annexure
Particulars:
No: No:
Bachawat Tribunal’s Opinion on Irrigation facilities in the
1. I
Hyderabad State
Bachawat Tribunal’s Opinion on the argument of Council of
2. Andhra Pradesh with regard to Tungabhadra Left Canal II
extension Project
Bachawat Tribunal’s observations in respect of Jurala
3. III
Project
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
Principles laid down by International Institute of Law on
9. VIIA
Water allocations
G.O. No. 77, dated 15-04-1999 regarding supply of Jurala
10. VIII
water to RDS tail end Ayacut
Supreme Court’s observations on the Petition of Atmalinga
11. IX
Reddy
Govt.’s Order extending the Left Bank Canal of NS Project
12. X
to serve Tiruvur and Nuzvid areas
Recommendations of the Members of the Committee on
13. XI
Estimates on ayacut of Left Bank Canal of NS Project
14. Estimates on Dropping the Left Canal into Paleru XII
Reservoir
Govt.’s orders dated 01-12-1969 on restoring the ayacut of
15. XIII
Left Canal of NS Project and other orders
16. XIV
Estimates on restricting the area under lift irrigation
Bachawat Tribunal’s Directions in respect of according
17. XV
equal priority to all Projects
Bachawat Tribunal’s Directions on Srisailam Project with
18. XVI
respect to keeping it as a Hydro Electric Project
Maharashtra Govt.’s argument on allowing water for
19. XVII
evaporation loss in Srisailam Reservoir
20. List of Irrigation Projects dependent on Srisailam flows XVIII
List of balancing Reservoirs storing surplus flows on
21. XIX
Telugu Ganga Project
National Water Policy & HelSinki Rules with regard to
22. XX
transfer of water outside the Basin
Bachawat Tribunal’s observations with respect to MDDL of
23. XXA
Srisailam
G.O. No. 69, dated 15-06-1996 keeping MDDL of Srisailam
24. XXI
at 834 ft.
Suggestions of Bachawat Tribunal in improving the
25. XXII
efficiency in Power productions of Srisailam Reservoir
G.O. No. 107, dated 28-09-2004 increasing the MDDL of
26. XXIII
Srisailam Reservoir to 854 ft.
G.O.s 170, 233 & 3 regarding diverting flows from
27. XXIIIA
Srisailam Reservoir through Pothireddipadu HR
Paper cuttings on Dummugudem-tail pond link Canal
28. XXIV
proposal
Bachawat Tribunal’s observations on allocating waters to
29. XXIVA
IInd Crop of Krishna Delta
Irrigation potential achieved under Right & Left Canals of
30. XXV
NS Project
Details of particulars of Right Bank & Left Bank Canals of
31. XXVI
NS Project
Discrimination between Left Bank & Right Bank Canal
32. farmers with regard to operational Charges of lifting XXVIA
schemes
Comparison of Budget provisions between Telugu Ganga
33. XXVIB
& SLBC
Admission on slow progress on SLBC in the Annual
34. XXVII
Budget 1996-97
Inability of Government to provide funds to Pochampad as
35. XXVIIA
indicated in the Budget Speech
36. Comparison of figures of Pochampad & Nagarjunasagar: XXVIIB
Minutes of the meeing of Sr. Engineers regarding the
37. XXVIII
Irrigation Potential created under SRSP Project:
38. Comments of CAG on SRSP Stage-I XXVIIIA
39. Publicity of Govt. on Pranahitha-Chevella link Project: XXVIIIB
G.O. No. 557, dated 27-06-2005, curtailing the ayacut of
40. XXVIIIC
Pranahitha-Chevella Project
41. Paper cutting on Chief Ministers displeasure XXVIIID
42. G.O.s on Pranahitha-Chevella Project XXIX
G.O.s on Dummugudem-NS tail pond & Pranahitha-
43. XXX
Chevella issued on 16-05-2007
Paper cutting on opposition’s ire on Dummugudem-NS
44. XXXA
Project
45. G.O. issued on Singur Project at the instance of KCR XXXI
Findings of the 9th Report of the Committee of Petitions in
46. XXXII
respect of yield of Nizamsagar Project
Views of Sri KV Srinivas Rao’s Committee on diversion of
47. XXXIII
Manjeera Water
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
Ministry of Water Resources’ views on clearing the
54. XXXV
Inchampally & Polavaram Projects
55. Sources of Irrigation across the three regions of AP XXXVI
56. G.O. No.34, dated 09-02-2007 on Micro Irrigation XXXVII
Excerpts from the Budget speech (1987-88) regarding
57. XXXVIII
dropping of Krishna Waters into KC Canal
Translated version of advertisement issued by Govt. of AP
58. XXXVIIIA
on Jalayagnam
Comments of Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee on
59. XXXIX
Irrigation facilities in Telangana
Statement of Dr. Marri Chenna Reddy on Canal Irrigation
60. XXXX
in Telangana
U.O. Note of planning & local administration department
61. XXXXI
regarding the gap irrigation between Andhra & Telangana
Comment of Sub-Committee on Planning of AP Regional
62. Committee regarding difference in expenditure of both the XXXXII
regions
Comments of Indian Irrigation commission 1901-03 on
63. XXXXIII
utility of Irrigation in Telangana
List of Irrigation Projects, to which be visits by Hon’ble Members
of Sri Krishna Committee are requested.
Reference to Page No.

S.No: Name of the Project: District:
of the Report
GODAVARI BASIN
1. Sriramsagar Project, Stage-I Karimnagar &
25
Warangal
2. Sriramsagar Project, Stage-II Warangal &
26
Nalgonda
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 Dam Nalgonda, & 13

Left Canal, Right Canal Guntur
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 1 st 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 1 st 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:
Sl.No: Rayalaseema Coastal Andhra

Telangana: Total:
Catchments area of Krishna basin 29.441

1 lying in the region 5414 3860 20.167 100%
(SQ. Miles/Percentage) 18.39% 13.11% 68.50%
Allocation as per Krishna Water

133.70 388.44 277.86 800
2 Disputes Tribunal Award
16.71% 48.56% 34.73% 100%
(TMC./Percentage)
Utilization of water outside the
53.60 362.60 Nil 416.20
3 Krishna basin
40.1% 93.33% Nil 52.02%
(TMC./Percentage)
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)
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 & Rainfall

2. Population
3. Cultivable area
4. Backwardness
5. Availability of other sources of water
6. 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 8 th 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 31 st 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: 2006-07
Telangana
1. Nizamsagar 1.30
2. SRSP 6.27
3. NSLC 4.00*
4. Jurala 1.02
5. RDS 0.31
Sub Total : 12.9
Andhra
6. Vamsadhara 1.87
7. Godavari Delta 10.13
8. Krishna Delta 10.03
Pennar System
9. 0.24
including Somasila
10. KC Canal 2.72
11. TBP LLC 0.20
12. TBP HLC 0.89
13. Yeleru 0.53
14. NSRC 6.5
15. NSLC 2.5*
16. TGP 0.73
17. SRBC 0.60
Sub Total : 39.1
Grand Total : 52.01
Ratio of area irrigated in
3.03:1
Andhra to Telangana:
Percentage of area
irrigated to cultivable 7%
area in Telangana:
Percentage of area 18.2%
irrigated to cultivable
area in Andhra:
Ratio of area irrigated in 2.6:1
Andhra to Telangana
(considering respective
cultivable areas)
* 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 31 st 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. Pre- revised scale Revised scale

Name of the post
No. Rs. Rs.
1. UDC in the Secretariat 135 – 200 (T) 100 – 200

90 – 170 (A)
2 Asst. Superintendent 200 – 350 (T) 150 – 300
200 – 300 (A)
3. Superintendents in 170 – 320 (T) 150 – 300

Directorates 190 – 240 (A)
4. Jr. Superintendents in 170 – 320 (T) 150 – 250

Directorates
140 – 190 (A)
5. UDC in directorates 150 – 170 (T) 90 -180

80 – 125 (A)
6. Typists in Directorates 54 – 130 (T) 50 – 120

45 – 90 (A)
7 Revenue Asst. & Tahasildars 250 – 450 (T) 200 – 350

200 – 300 (A)
8 Dy. Tahasildars 190 – 275 (T) 150 – 250

150 – 260 (A)
9 Asst. Surgeons & Tutors in 250 – 550 (T) 250 – 500

medical dept.
200 – 400 (A)
10 Agricultural Demonstrators & 176 – 300 (T) 150 – 300

farm managers
100 – 200 (A)
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 3 rd 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.
1.1.1. 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,.
1.1.2. 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.
1.2. 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:
1.2.1. 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.
1.2.2. 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
Ref. (APSEB
S. No. Name of the Project Location District Capacity Adm. Report)
Kuntala Hydro Electric

1 Across river Kadam Adilabad 24 MW 1966-67*
Scheme
Across river
Pranahita Hydro Electric
2 Pranahita, a tributary Adilabad 280 MW 1966-67
Scheme
of Godavari
Inchampally Hydro
3 Across Godavari Karimnagar 600 MW 1966-67
Electric Scheme
Singareddy Hydro
4 Electric Scheme: Across Godavari Warangal 192 MW 1966-67
Dummagudem
Dindi Hydro Electric On North East canal

5 Nalgonda 21 MW 1966-67
Scheme of the project
Sankarpalli Gas Power

7 Sankarpalli Ranga Reddy 1400 MW 2000-01
Station
Karimnagar Gas Power

8 Nedunuru Karimnagar 2100 MW 2004-05
Station
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 14 th 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
Total Amount
Amount to Balance to
released
Sl. Name of the Name of the be paid to be paid to
so far to
No. Scheme Substations Transco Transco (Rs
Transco
in Cr)
(Rs in Cr) (Rs. in Cr)
1 Rajeev (Bhima) Panchadevpadu, 8.04 8.04

Lift-I Irrigation Nil
Khanapur
Scheme
2 Bhima Lift-II Thirumalayapalli, 8.52 8.52

Irrigation Scheme Nil
Kothakota
3 Mahatma Gandhi Regumanugadda,

(Kalwakurthy) Lift 103.89 103.89
Jonnalaboguda, Nil
Irrigation Scheme
Gudipallygattu
4 Nettampadu Lift Gudamdoddi, 30.84 30.84

Marlavidu
5 Koilsagar Lift Nagireddypalli, 8.43 8.43

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*
% total Expenditure
No of HVDS services incurred
Agricultural implemented % of Total
Region selected in (Rs. in
services as on expenditure
services each crores)
31-03-2009
region
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 1 st
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 4 th,
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
No. of Name of the No. of No. of

Name of the Zone Name of the Zone
Stores Zone Stores Stores
Kadapa Hyderabad Metro

Vizag TL&SS Zone
TL&SS Zone TL&SS Zone
Vizag 1 Kadapa 1 Hyderabad 1
Hyderabad Rural
Kadiyam 1 Karnool 1 - NIL -
TL&SS Zone
Vijayawada Zone Warangal

Thirupathi 1 - NIL -
TL&SS Zone TL&SS Zone
Boommur 1 - - - -
Gunadala 1 - - - -
Total Total
7 1
13 districts per 10 districts
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
No. of
No. of Hot No. of Hot
Name of the Hot line Name of the
line sub- Name of the Zone line sub-
Zone sub- Zone
division division
division
Vizag Kadapa Tl&Ss Hyderabad Metro

0 0 0
Zone Tl&Ss Zone
Tl&Ss Zone
Vizag 2 Nos. Kadapa 1 No. Hyderabad 1 No.
Rajamandry Hyderabad Rural

1 No. Karnool 1 No. 0
Tl&Ss Zone
Vijayawada
0 Warangal Tl&Ss Zone 0
Zone
Nellore 1 No. Ramagundam 1 No.
Vijayawada 1 No.
Total Hot Line Sub-

Total Hot Line Sub-Division for 13 Districts
7 Nos. Division Per 2 Nos.
10 Districts
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
Capacity Allocation as % of Total

Name of the Company
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).
1.3. 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 Capacity Telangana Andhra Total

MW % MW %
Existing 4764 34 9258 66 14022
Under Constn/
5936 25 17568 75 23504
Development
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
5481 52 5091 48 10572
05-03-2010
 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
Telangana Region: Medak,
Rangareddy, Hyderabad,
3 APCPDCL Distribution Nalgonda, Mahboobnagar,
Andhra Region: Kurnool,
Anantapur
Srikakulam, Vijayanagaram,
Visakhapatnam, East Godavari
4 APEPDCL Distribution
and West Godavari (All districts in
Andhra Region)
Krishna, Guntur, Prakasham,
5 APSPDCL Distribution Nellore, Kadapa and Chittoor. (All
districts in Andhra Region)
Adilabad, Nizamabad,
Karimnagar, Warangal and
6 APNPDCL Distribution
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
60% 70% 80%
per Presidential Order
Executive Non-Executive
Category of Posts O&M Posts Total
Posts Posts
VTPS 874 544 1421 2839
RTPP 509 275 805 1589
Total Posts 1383 819 2226 4428
Reserved Quota for

829.8 573.3 1780.8 3183.9
Telangana
50 % of open quota 276.6 122.85 222.6 622.05
Total posts lost by 1106.4 696.15 2003.4 3806

Telangana
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 % of
Telangana Andhra
Employee Telangana
Class-I 21 99 17.5
GENCO
Class-II 133 155 46.2
Class-I 40 90 30.8
TRANSCO
Class-II 104 156 40.0
Class-I 33 28 54.1
APCPDCL 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
% of
Generating Station Class of Employee Telangana Andhra
Telangana
Class-I 1 12 7.7
KTPP
Class-II 59 16 78.7
Class-I 10 25 28.6
KTPS V&VI
Class-II 121 84 59.0
Class-I 16 36 30.8
KTPS(O&M)
Class-II 275 169 61.9
Class-I 2 5 28.6
NSHES Engnrs
Class-II 54 57 48.6
Class-I 1 4 20.0
PJHEP
Class-II 14 16 46.7
Class-I 0 3 0.0
LJHEP
Class-II 7 6 53.8
Pchmpd, Nzmsgr, Class-I 0 4 0.0

Singur, Pdplly & Palair Class-II 29 13 69.0
Class-I 6 12 33.3
SLBHES
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 Telangana Andhra

Quarters Projects Projects
Suppressed (610
10 235 204
Applicable)
Created (610 Applicable) 0 90 65
Created (610 Not

3 174 138
Applicable)
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 %Excess/Less
BST is allowed
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 % of Agricultural Total T&D

connections as on Consumption losses(%)
30-03-2009
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
Agl. Connected Agricultural

Load in KVA Consumption in KWH
Company Remarks
(Transco (Tariff Order 2009-10,
Statistical reports) Table 64)*
APEPDCL 914824 1323 Andhra
APSPDCL 3145950 3456 Andhra
Telangana+
APCPDCL 3322621 6235
Anantapur&Kurnool
APNPDCL 2918554 3055 Telangana
Total 10301949 14068
Annexure-23
Table 3.6 : Regionwise Agriculture Connected Load Vs Agricultural

Consumption
Connected % Agl.
Connected Agricultural
Region Load % of Remarks
Load (KVA) Consumption Consumption
Total Load
Anantapur
Andhra 4854534 47.12 5838 41.4 &Kurnool
including
Anantapur &
Telangana 5447415 52.87 8230 58.6 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.
2008-09
Sl. Industrial
District (Including
No Domestic Agricultural All Categories
cottage
and H.T)
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 140 195 255 746
Generation)
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 PCC of % Excess / Less in

State
in Telangana Domestic comparison with State
Average
Region sector 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
Average PCC of
Domestic Sector in
PCC of Domestic
Region AP (Excluding % Excess or Less
sector
Hyderabad and
Rangareddy)
Andhra 142 128 +
Telangana
(excluding Hyderabad 93 128 -
and Ranga Reddy)
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 7 th 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:
Installed
Sl.No. Name of the Power Project Capacity Region located
(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 5365 MU

(Andhra region)
Total power requirement for Telangana Region 36226 MU
Table 5.2. Available Energy and Cost of Power Purchase:
Installed Available Cost/Unit Total Cost

Name of the
capacity Energy Remarks
Project (Rs) (Rs.Cr)
(MW) (MU)
Manuguru
Thermal Power
1760 10392 2.15 2234.28 For thermal
Project (Shifted
projects 90% PLF
to Vijayawada)
is assumed.
KTPP-Stage I &
1100 6706 2.07 1388.142
II 1966 MU is
Shankarapally deducted from
Gas Power 1400 11012 2.8 3083.36 KTPP-I, which was
Project already
considered.
KTPS-VI 600 4730 2.07 979.11
Sattupally TPS 600 4730 2.07 979.11
Total Hydro 1000 2628 1 262.8 It is assumed that

Power Projects 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, Rs 1976 Cr

PGCIL expenses, ULDC epenses, Interest on consumer deposits,
supply margin
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: Rs 10565 cr
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
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 2351 MU

hours): 8230*2 /7
Additional energy required for Domestic Sector if 24 hrs 1140 MU

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
Total additional power required for Agriculture and Domestic 4364 MU

sectors assuming 20% T&D losses =2351 + 1140 = 3491
/0.80
Cost of additional power purchases ( This is equal to Rs 1528 cr

reduction in revenue from marketing power)
i.e. 436.4x3.50
Revenue from sale of additional domestic power @ Rs 2/- Rs 228 cr

per unit= 114x2
Revenue surplus after meeting the 9 hrs supply to Rs 1749 cr

Agricultue and24 hr supply to domestic sector (3049-
1528+228)
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

State Sector
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
Vijjeswaram 272.00 272.00

Sector
Joint
Total Joint Sector 272.00 0.00 272.00 0.00

Central Sector
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
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

Private Sector
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

State Sector
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
NTPC Simhadri (1000 MW) 336.00 336.00
Vallur JV Unit 3 (500 MW) 75.00 75.00

Central Sector
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
Konaseema 165.00 165.00

Private Sector
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
C Damodar Reddy, IAS,
1 Sec to Govt, Finance Dept Member A 01-04-59 31-03-60
R Prasad, ICS, Sec to Govt.,
2 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
Secretary to
7 B Gopala Krishnaiah 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
Secretary to
10 M Venkataratnam, IAS 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
Sec to Govt,,
31 J V Narsing Rao PWD T 26-12-66 25-12-69
32 C.Narasimham Chairman A 26-12-66 17-01-70
Financial
34 R.Rajagopalan 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
Chf Sec & Vig

41 Tilji Raj 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 Gangopadhyay Sec to Govt,, O 26-12-69 17-01-70

PWD
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
Sec to Govt,,
59 K V Sreenivasa Rao PWD A 16-12-71 31-01-74
Chf Sec & Vig

60 N Radhakrishna Murthy 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
Sec to Govt,,
63 B L Gangopadhyay 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
Ex Officio
67 G Shankara Guruswamy Member O 01-04-75 31-03-76
Ex Officio
68 P S Krishna 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
Ex Officio
71 M Gopala Krishnan Member O 01-04-75 31-03-76
72 M B Balaraj Member A 06-08-75 31-03-76
Ex Officio
73 K Jayabharath Reddy Member A 23-01-76 31-03-77
Ex Officio
74 K V Natarajan 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
Ex officio
78 M Gopala Krishnan 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
Sec to
Govt/Irr&Powwe
81 M Gopala Krishnan r 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
Sec to Govt/Irrn
88 M Gopala Krishnan & Power O 01-04-78 06-12-78
Ex Officio
89 N Raghava Member A 01-06-78 04-12-78
Sec to Govt/Irrn
90 C N Shastry & Power A 06-12-78 26-12-78
Ex Officio
91 S V Subrahmanyam Member 16-12-78 31-03-79
Ex Officio
92 B K Rao 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
Ex Officio
100 Y Sreeramulu Membeer A 01-04-80 20-05-80
Ex Officio
101 T L Shankar Membeer O 01-04-80 24-11-80
102 N Radhakrishna Murthy Sec A 19-04-80 30-08-84
Ex Officio
103 B Prathap Reddy Membeer A 24-11-80 31-03-81
Ex Officio
104 B N Ramana Membeer A 05-01-81 31-03-81
Ex Officio
105 I Basava Raju Membeer T 17-01-81 31-03-81
Ex Officio
106 J A Murrae 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
Member/
116 J. Sugunakara Rao 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
Prl Sec/Perm
130 S Santhanam Invitee O 01-04-90 04-05-90
Prl Sec/Perm
131 S K Bhandarkar 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
Member/
144 K. Venakata Swamy 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
Member/
154 K. Y. Venugoplala Rao 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
JMD/APTRANSCO and
43 Harish Kumar, IAS EPDCL O 13-06-06 31-03-08
NWHTD
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
Umesh Sharraf ,IPS SPDCL

114 NWHTD O 16-09-08 31-03-10
JMD(V&S)
115 S.Viswanatham Dir (RAC) SPDCL A 02-12-08 31-03-10
G.Rama Krishna Dir SPDCL

(Finance and
116 NWHTD A 09-01-09 31-03-10
Revenue)/APTRANSCO
Reddy,
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 ADE T 95 K VENKATESWARA RAO PO T
2 B MAMATHA ADE T 96 R SURYAKANTH PO T
3 K HIMA AE T 97 M SREENIVASULU PO T
4 B MANJULA AE T 98 M RAJANARSIMHA PO T
5 V ARUDHRA EE T 99 K S SUBRAHMANAYAMRAJU SE T
6 P MADHAVI JPO T 100 B AJAY KUMAR TYPIST T
7 H B SUJATHA PO T 101 G VAMANARAO DIRECTOR(HR) T
8 G SWAROOPA RANI PO T 102 M NARASIMHA RAO JPO T
9 P PUSHPALATHA PO T 103 D RAVINDER JPO T
10 M INDIRA KUMARI TYPIST T 104 A SUDHAKAR PO T
11 P THIRUPATHAMMA Office Subordinate T 105 M JAYA PRAKASH GOUD PO T
12 P INDUMATHI PO T 106 DR I LAXMAREDDY ACS T
13 G MANJULARANI ACS T 107 RAMAKRISHNA PAWAR ACS T
14 K K D MALLESWARI AS T 108 CH JANARDHAN AE T
15 K RAJANI JPO T 109 P GOVIND RAOMUDIRAJ DS T
16 S LAXMI BAI Office Subordinate T 110 M SATAYANARAYANA Dy.C S T
17 A RANGAMMA Office Subordinate T 111 SYED ZAHEERUDDIN JPO T
18 P NAGAMANI Office Subordinate T 112 M RAMA KRISHNA JPO T
19 G UMA Office Subordinate T 113 P SAMUEL JPO T
20 B MANJULA RANI PO T 114 S LOHIT ANAND PO T
21 SD FARHATUNNISA SWEEPER T 115 V RAMA RAO PO T
22 M VATSALA JPO T 116 GULAMHUSSAIN PO T
23 B LAXMIBAI PO T 117 K VIDYAPATHIRAO PO T
24 M PADMANJANI AAO T 118 MD HAMEEDUDDIN PO T
25 M KAVITHA JAO T 119 M ANILKISHORE PO T
26 SABIHA BEGUM RA T 120 B NARASING RAO RONEO OP T
27 S VIJAYA LAKHMI SAO T 121 S OMPRAKASH AS T
28 A RADHARANI AAO T 122 G RAVINDER ASSISTANT T
29 G GRACE AO T 123 K VENKATESHWAARLU JPO T
30 K AROGYA RANI AO T 124 V NARASIMHA RAO JPO T
31 M RAMADEVI AO T 125 MD ASIF ALI OS T
32 K P GRACE DAMAYANTHI JAO T 126 MD KHAJA PASHA OS T
33 M BHAGYA LAXMI JAO T 127 K RAMBABU OS T

34 M SOUJANYA JAO T 128 Y GURUPRASAD OS T
35 CH VASUDHA LDC T 129 V MANI KUMAR OS T
36 B A MANGATAYARU UDC T 130 K RAJA SEKHAR OS T
37 T HEMALATHA UDC T 131 K SRINU OS T
38 D LAKSHMI UDC T 132 SK MOULANA OS T
39 T SHARADA ADE T 133 D S SUNDARA RAJU OS T
40 R KRANTHI KUMARI AE T 134 V VENKATARAMANA PO T
41 K S PADMALATHA AO T 135 SD ZIA UR REHMAN TYPIST T
42 T GODAVARI 23499728 AO T 136 P MD SAJID ALI KHAN ASSISTANT T
43 J MAMATHA JAO T 137 MD SHAMSUDDIN HC T
44 G MADHAVI ADE T 138 MD YOUSUF OS T
45 ANEES SULTANA BEGUM AE T 139 GOPAL OS T
46 JYOTHSNA CHITTY AE T 140 R BALABHASKAR RAO SSI T
47 N CHYTHANYA AE T 141 SK SIRAJUDDIN SSI T
48 S VANAJA RANI AE T 142 M LINGAM SSI T
49 A SUSHMA AE T 143 D PRABHAKAR RAO DIRECTOR T
50 N S MADHAVI AE T 144 N MD SUHALE JAO T
51 A ANNAPURNA AE T 145 A SRINIVAS JPO T
52 D DURGA BHAVANI AE 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 AE T 149 S SURESH OS T
56 K BHAVANI AE T 150 M SRINIVAS RAO AAO T
57 R SAISREE AE T 151 P SHEKAR REDDY AAO T
58 B VIJAYA LAXMI A E TRAINEE T 152 B ESHWARGOUD AAO T
59 G PRABHAVATHI AO T 153 A VENKATARAO JAO T
60 J RAJA LAKSHMI AE T 154 G SRINIVAS JAO T
61 J Kavitha JAO (?) T 155 B VENUGOPAL JAO T
62 B RADHA JPA T 156 K SAIDULU JAO T
63 G SHANTHI LDC T 157 SUBHAN SARTAJ UNNISA JPO T
64 L SUCHITRA 27563742 JAO T 158 CH VENKAIAH OS T
65 Anita JAO T 159 A LINGAIAH OS T
66 Sd ZAREENA BEGUM Office Subordinate A 160 MD YOUSUFUDDIN UDC T
67 B NAGAMANI Office Subordinate A 161 K M ZAHEERUDDIN UDC T
68 M GANGA BHAVANI Office Subordinate A 162 A DAYAKAR REDDY UDC T
69 Y LAXMI Office Subordinate A 163 B MUTYALU AAO T
70 E ANURADHA DYCCA A 164 PARMESWAR P AAO T

71 W R APARNA UDC A 165 SYED NASIR UL HAQ AAO T
72 CH ANURADHA LDC A 166 R BALAKRISHNA RAO AAO T
73 MD JOHNYMIYA ASSISTANT T 167 K SRINIVAS JAO T
74 B SATYANARAYANA JPO T 168 G DEVENDER JAO T
75 J MAHESH JPO T 169 M SAMPATH KUMAR JAO T
76 SD MUNEER ALI LMD T 170 K G RAMA KRISHNA JAO T
77 J SUDHAKAR Office Subordinate T 171 K VENKATESWARLU JAO 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 RA T 174 Sk AKBAR PASHA Office Subordinate T
81 K RAMESH ADE T 175 Ch RAMU TYPIST T
82 K MAHENDER RAO ADE T 176 V CHANDRA KUMAR UDC T
83 G VENKANNA AE T 177 M RAJU ADE T
84 P UMA SHANKER AE T 178 B RAVINDER ADE T
85 V KRISHNA PRASAD AO T 179 G VENKATAIAH ADE T
86 A RAMA RAO E D (IS) T 180 N SURESH KUMAR AE T
87 D NAVEEN VARMA JPA T 181 B KRISHNA KUMAR AAO T
88 T BHEEM SINGH JPO T 182 N SONIRAO AO T
89 P RAMULAMMA Office Subordinate T 183 S DURGA PRASAD JAO T
90 K DEVENDER REDDY ADE T 184 M EASHWARAIAH GOUD JAO T
91 A ASHOK KUMAR AE T 185 MD SAYEED Office Subordinate T
92 KHUTAIJA ASHRAF SALMA ASSISTANT T 186 G VEERESHAM ADE T
93 SYED FAHEEM ASSISTANT T 187 B GOPAL ADE T
94 D RATNAKAR JPO T 188 I SUMANTH REDDY ADE T
189 D VARAPRASAD RAO ADE T 285 S V SHYAM SUNDER AAO A
190 N SANTOSH ADE T 286 K K N SIVA PRASAD JAO A
191 C KISHORE ADE T 287 G Sridhar JAO A
192 VIDYASAGAR CH ADE T 288 A SIVAKUMAR SE A
193 P MOMIN PASHA ADE T 289 R VIJAYA KUMAR TYPIST A
194 S N S SHEKHAR ADE T 290 V S KARTHI AS A
195 K LAXMAN ADE T 291 M KRISHNA FMD Gr.IV A
196 T KRISHNA MURTHY AE T 292 K VIJAYANAND I A S MD A
197 K RAGHUPATHI REDDY AE T 293 D SATHYANARAYANASHARMA PS A
198 A BALANARAYANA AE T 294 P SREENIVASULU RA A
199 G SEKHAR AE T 295 C VIMALADEVI AAO A
200 O YASHODHAR RAJU AE T 296 G ADINARAYANA COM SEC A

201 P VENKATESWARLU AE T 297 C DHANAMJAI ADE A
202 VEGGALAM SRIDHAR AE T 298 J RAMESH BABU ADE A
203 B PUNNA AE T 299 K S B TRIPURA SUNDARI ADE A
204 B MURALIDHARARAO DE T 300 P RAVI KIRAN ADE A
205 G SRINIVASARAO DE T 301 P VINOD KUMAR ADE A
206 MD SAFIULLAH JPO T 302 C BALA SUBBANNA AE A
207 MD HIDAYATULLAH RA T 303 B VANAJA AE A
208 VENKAT GIRI RA T 304 A RADHIKA AE A
209 M HIMESH KUMAR SE T 305 B N PRABHAKAR DE A
210 P RAMESH BABU AAE T 306 P SAMBASIVAREDDY DE A
211 M MURALIDHAR RAO ADE T 307 S JABEERKHAN DE A
212 M UMAMAHESWARA CHARY ADE T 308 MD KHAJA MOHINUDDIN FM Gr.IV A
213 K RAJ KUMAR ADE T 309 B R B ANAND JPA A
214 K PRASANNA KUMAR ADE T 310 N SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A
215 SRINIVAS B 9493120157 ADE T 311 M KUMARA SWAMY PA A
216 G JAIRAJ NAIDU ADE T 312 S ANJUMANARA BEGUM SUB ENGINEER A
217 D VARAPRASAD ADE T 313 T PRABHAKAR RAO IRTS ED COAL A
218 B NAGESWARARAO ADE T 314 G RAVIKUMAR GM A
219 S RUKMA GOUD ADE T 315 M V RAMANI KUMARI ADE A
220 B PRASHANT AE T 316 A SUMITHRA AE A
221 A VENKATA RAMANA REDDY AE T 317 M KANAKAMAHA LAXMI AS A
222 VENUGOPAL AE T 318 P VIJAYABHASKARARAO AS A
223 D R SUBHASH CANDRA AE T 319 J VENKATA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT A
224 B RAMARAO AE T 320 V MADANA GOPAL ASSISTANT A
225 S RAVI AE T 321 CHVSRAMACHANDRAN CGM A
226 C MALLIKARJUNA RAO AE T 322 K CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DE A
227 G SHANKAR Office Subordinate T 323 V USHA DS A
228 T RAMACHANDRAM Office Subordinate T 324 T SATYANARAYANA JPO A
229 A BALRAJ RA T 325 D SAVITHRI DIXIT JPO A
230 M SACHIDANANDAM SE T 326 G LALITHA JPO A
231 K KUTUMBA RAMAIAH Office Subordinate T 327 D V SYAMALA JPO A
232 E PRASAD Office Subordinate T 328 P BHARATH BHUSHAN JPO A
233 P LAKSHMI KANTHA REDDY PO T 329 M SUSEELA JPO A
234 P NARAYAN NAIK ADE T 330 V ANJANEYULU JPO A
235 K RAVINDER REDDY ADE T 331 S R ARUNA JPO A
236 J SRINIVAS ADE T 332 S SURESHBABU JPO A
237 A VENKATA NARAYANA ADE T 333 M USHA PO A

238 M VENU ADE T 334 A J RATNA KUMARI PO A
239 K VENKATESWAREDDY ADE T 335 L NEELAKANTESWARA RAO AS A
240 N VENUGOPAL ADE T 336 S ASHOK KUMAR CGM A
241 M INDRADEEP ADE T 337 P S BHARGAVA DYLWO A
242 P S PRAVEEN KUMAR ADE T 338 N V S J MURALIDHAR JPO A
243 K PARAMESWARA CHARY AE T 339 T ASHOK JPO A
244 G RAVINDER RAO AE T 340 J SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A
245 R DHOOM SINGH AE T 341 G JAYAMANI PO A
246 CH VENKATARAJAM CE T 342 T V PADMAJA RANI PO A
247 M THIRUPATHIREDDY DE T 343 K ANILASANTHAKUMARI ACS A
248 D RAJU Office Subordinate T 344 V SUBBA RAO AS A
249 K PRATAP REDDY AEE T 345 A PADMAVATHI AS A
250 S S RATHOD JPO T 346 M UMA RANI AS A
251 SYED MOHEED Office Subordinate T 347 M RUPAVATHI AS A
252 J VENKATESWARLU Office Subordinate T 348 V ASHOK BABU ASSISTANT A
253 R VISWANATHAM PO T 349 P SRINIVAS ASSISTANT A
254 V Sreenivas TYPIST T 350 J PRIYADARSHINI ASSISTANT A
255 Y NAGESHWARA RAO EE T 351 D PRAKASH RAO CGM A
256 V SUDHEER AE T 352 B SHIVARAMREDDY DE A
257 T SHIVA PRASAD AE T 353 B V S N MURTHY JPO A
258 K SRINIVASA REDDY AEE T 354 M RAMAM JPO A
259 D SRIDHAR AEE T 355 Y VASANTHA KUMARI JPO A
260 D VEERANNA AEE T 356 M PADMAJA JPO A
261 T NARAYANA SE T 357 M RAMANJANEYA SARMA JPO A
262 M VISWANATH AE T 358 G GEETA Office Subordinate A
263 T NAVEEN KUMAR AEE T 359 M PRAVEENASRI Office Subordinate A
264 M SUKDEVPRASAD AEE T 360 B SATYNARAYANA PO A
265 E SRIDHAR EE T 361 M SYLENDRA KUMARI PHARMACIST A
266 K RAMA KRISHNA REDDY EE T 362 B LAVANYA RA A
267 D SUDERSHAN SE T 363 CH KANAKA DURGA RA A
268 D JAWAHARLAL JPO T 364 Sd SULEMAN RA A
269 R NARESH KUMAR Office Subordinate T 365 D V RAMAKRISHNA RONEO OP A
270 B SHIVA KUMAR EE T 366 MD FASIUDDIN FEROZ TYPIST A
271 G EKAMBRAM AE T 367 M PURINIMA AS A
272 SHAHEDA PARVEEN UDC 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 ADE T 371 T VIJAYALAKSHMI DS A
276 P JAGADEESH PO T 372 V RAMESH JPO A
277 P Rohit OS T 373 G VENKATA LAKSHMI JPO A
278 M Ramesh OS T 374 J NALINI JPO A
279 B Veeraswamy OS T 375 S KONDAL RAO JPO A
280 K Rajashekhar OS T 376 V SATYANARAYANA JPO A
281 N SURENDRANATH PO T 377 M SUKUMAR JS A
282 N JAYASANKER AE T 378 M INDIRAKUMARI Office Subordinate A
283 G SHIVAJI RAO SE 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 ADE A
382 L SALAMMA Office Subordinate A 478 P S CHAKRAVARTHY ADE A
383 V MADDESWARA REDDY Office Subordinate A 479 H CHANDRA SEKHAR ADE A
384 CH YESU BABU Office Subordinate A 480 K VENKATA RAMANA REDDY AE A
385 T GOPAIAH Office Subordinate A 481 ZAIBUNNISA BEGUM AE A
386 P RAMANJANEYULU Office Subordinate A 482 K SRINIVASA RAO CE A
387 D SAMBASHIVA RAO Office Subordinate A 483 M S V SUBRAHMANAYAM DE A
388 R HYMAVATHI Office Subordinate A 484 MVENKATASURESH DE 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 SAO A
391 T RANGA Office Subordinate A 487 CH NAGESWARA RAO SE A
392 N USHA RANI PO A 488 V KRISHNAIAH SE A
393 G SARASWATHAMMA PO A 489 K USHARANI TYPIST A
394 M V SATYANARAYANA PO A 490 V V RATNA KUMARI TYPIST A
395 G B N SASTRY PO A 491 K GANESH SINGH AAO A
396 A SUNDERKUMARDAS IPS CHIEF OF VIG SEC A 492 D SATISH AAO A
397 D NARASINGA RAO HC A 493 N MANJUNATHA RAO AO A
398 A SASHIKALA JPO A 494 P JAYARAJU AO A
399 K SWARNA DEVI JPO A 495 P NARASIMHACHARY DYCCA A
400 J VENKATARAMULU PC A 496 S SRINIVASARAO FA &CCA A
401 J KIRANKUMAR PC A 497 G YOGANAND JAO A
402 S SHYAMALA PO A 498 L V SATYANARAYANA JAO A
403 M A AZIZ SHG A 499 D JYOTHIRMAYEE JAO A
404 M NARASIMHA SHG A 500 N TULASIDAS SAO A
405 Y SEKHAR REDDY SHG A 501 U NAGARAJU SAO A
406 I M KHAN SHG A 502 C RAMALINGA REDDY DE A

407 J YADAGIRI SHG A 503 P NAGESH Office Subordinate A
408 G DARMA RAJ SHG A 504 P SATYASRINIVASU ADE A
409 G RATNAIAH SHG A 505 P PHANI KUMAR ADE A
410 B RADHA KRISHNA SHG A 506 R KALPANA KIRANMAYEE ADE A
411 P MADHAVA RAO SHG A 507 FURHANA ADE A
412 K SRINIVASA RAO SHG A 508 B GOPI KRISHNA ADE A
413 A SEETHA RAM REDDY SHG A 509 B SUNEETA ADE A
414 P PRABHAKER SHG A 510 Y V SATISH KUMAR ADE A
415 M BALRAJ SHG A 511 D MURALI KRISHNA ADE A
416 V GOVERDHAN SHG A 512 C SUREKHA ADE A
417 P BHUJANGA RAO SHG A 513 Z V GANESWARA RAO ADE A
418 A PRABHAKAR SI A 514 G V LAKSHMI ADE A
419 P RAMAKRISHNA SO A 515 T BHANU ADE A
420 CH NARASIMHARAO SSI A 516 E SRIDEVI ADE A
421 B YADAGIRI RAO SSI A 517 S PRIYADARSHINI ADE A
422 J JITHENDER SSI A 518 V KALPANA ADE A
423 M NARASIMHA SSI A 519 L RAJASEKHAR ADE A
424 M C V PRAKASA RAO SSI A 520 E RAGHURAMI REDDY ADE A
425 K KRISHNA SREE AS A 521 C SUDHARASANA REDDY ADE A
426 CH HARANATHA BABU DYCCA A 522 K SRINIVASA RAO ADE A
427 K SRINIVAS TYPIST A 523 A SUJATHA AE A
428 A ANANTALAXMI AAO A 524 M NAGAMANI AE A
429 S VENKATA RAMANAMMA AAO A 525 K EDUKONDALU AE A
430 V AMMANA RAJA AO A 526 J LALITHA KUMARI AE A
431 G V R VIJAYA LAKSHMI AO A 527 M RAVI AE A
432 B KRISHNA VENI AO A 528 K LAKSHMI SAYEE ASSISTANT A
433 M MOHANA RAO AO A 529 CH TIRUPATIRAYADU CE A
434 M B SARASWATHI AO A 530 P RAMAKRISHANA CE A
435 G ANANDA BABU AO A 531 K JAVAHAR DE A
436 M RAMESH BABU AO A 532 V V R GURUNATH DE A
437 S ABDULSATTAR AO A 533 G PRABHAKAR DE A
438 B S MOHANKUMAR FA &CCA A 534 P VENKATESWARA RAO DE A
439 A PENCHALA RATNAMU JAO A 535 G,KRISHNAMOHAN DE A
440 V SATYAVANI JAO A 536 DSSVSUBBARAO DE A
441 S ABDUL KHALIQ JAO A 537 M UMA DEVI DE A
442 T SATISH KUMAR JAO A 538 D LAKSHMI DEVI JPO A
443 P GEETHA VANI JAO A 539 S K HASSENMIYA Office Subordinate A

444 G SATHI RAJU SAO A 540 M SAMBASIVA RAO SE A
445 G V S R ANJANEYULU SAO A 541 E NAGESWARA RAO SE A
446 D ARAVINDA REDDY UDC A 542 M SUJAYA KUMAR SE A
447 P TULASI RANI UDC A 543 I KESAVAPRASAD SE A
448 SK KARIMULLAH UDC A 544 G VAMSEE MOHAN ADE A
449 R SUDHA RANI UDC A 545 M SRINIVAS ADE A
450 N SATYA KUMARI AAO A 546 T EDUKONDALU ADE A
451 B VEERA RAGHAVULU AAO A 547 CH RAMA KRISHNA ADE A
452 P MYTHILI AO A 548 B SRIDHAR ADE A
453 K SIVA RAMI REDDY AO A 549 M SRINIVASULU ADE A
454 A RAMESH BABU AO A 550 P SURESH KUMAR ADE A
455 M RAMESH AO A 551 B BHULAKSHMI ADE A
456 B PRABHUDASS DYCCA A 552 D VIJAYAKUMAR ADE A
457 B VENKATESULUREDDY FA &CCA A 553 G SRIDHAR ADE A
458 M RAMAKOTI JAO A 554 K LAKSHMI NARASIMHULU ADE A
459 VDLP RAMANA KUMARI JAO A 555 J DHARMAREDDY ADE A
460 G V S R BABJI JAO A 556 G SURESH BABU ADE A
461 G SREEDHAR JAO A 557 Y NAVEEN KUMAR ADE A
462 S KATAIAH JAO A 558 K VENKATESH ADE A
463 CH VIJAYA SREE JAO A 559 B SEKHAR BABU ADE A
464 V SATYANARAYANA JAO A 560 R ADARSHA KUMAR RAO ADE A
465 M SIRISHA RANI LDC A 561 CH SRINIVASA RAO ADE A
466 D RAVINDER Office Subordinate A 562 Y SRINIVAS AE A
467 I LAKSHMANA RAO PAY OFFICER A 563 N SHANTHALATHA AE A
468 V VIJAY KUMAR SAO A 564 B DHANALAKSHMI AE A
469 V SRINIVASA RAO SAO A 565 M VAMSI MOHAN AE A
470 P VENKTESWARA RAO SAO A 566 Y NAVEEN KUMAR AE A
471 S SREERANGNAYAKULU SAO A 567 V MARUTHI AE A
472 B NOOKESH UDC A 568 SYED ALTHAF UNNISA AE A
473 A RAVI KRISHNA UDC A 569 P DEEPTHI AE A
474 K SAROJA UDC A 570 S KIRANMAYEE AE A
475 Y NARASIMHA JAYANTH AAE A 571 K ASHA JYOTHI AE A
476 A SACHINDRA BABU ADE A 572 P PRAKASH CE A
573 A VENKATA KIRAN DE A 669 P THRIMURTHY AE A
574 A V SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO

DE A 670 L NANA BABU AE A
575 D SIMHACHALAM DE A 671 G SRINIVASA RAO ADE A

576 J RAGHAVENDRA RAO DE A 672 D PRAKASH AE A
577 CH SREENIVASA RAO DE A 673 R CHANDRA SEKHAR AE A
578 K VENKATESWARLU DE A 674 K DAVID CHEMIST A
579 G RAMAKRISHNUDU DE A 675 P VASANTHA RAO JAO A
580 P V SRINIVAS DE A 676 M ANITHA UDC A
581 R RAVINDRAKUMAR DE A 677 Md AHMED FMD GR-II A
582 V KRUPAKAR EE A 678 J SRINIVAS FM GR-IV A
583 V SRINIVAS JPO A 679 T TIRUPATHI Office Subordinate A
584 MD SABER PASHA JPO A 680 M SHARADA SR CHEMIST A
585 A NARASIMHARAO SE A 681 N RAJ KUMAR AEE A
586 P KUMAR BABU SE A 682 G PYDI RAJU AE A
587 B A MOHANRAO SE A 683 P SREE RAMI REDDY EE A
588 B JAGADISHCHANDRA PRASADA D E A 684 BPD NAGALAKSHMI UDC 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 LMD A
592 V SRINIVAS Office Subordinate A 688 CH YANADHAIAH AE A
593 M SRIKRISHNA AAE A 689 G VENKATA AJAY KUMAR AE A
594 L KONDA MADHAVA REDDY ADE A 690 I VIJAYA KUMAR EE A
595 N V KRISHNA ADE A 691 D SRINIVASA RAJU AEE A
596 K SYAMA SUNDER ADE A 692 C V RANGA NAGAN SE A
597 CH RAMESH REDDY ADE A 693 M SRIDHAR JPA A
598 P MADHU BABU ADE A 694 K SUDHAKAR Rao JPA A
599 B S U M AVADHANI ADE A 695 CH SRINIVASULU SanitaryOrderly A
600 N ARUNASRI AE A 696 G VIJAYA LAXMI SUB ENGINEER A
601 CH VANI AE A 697 N ANJANI GAUTHAMI CHEMIST A
602 A KALYANI AE A 698 K RADHIKA LDC A
603 L V SWAMY NAIDU DE A 699 D NARAYANA REDDY AAE A
604 CH RAMBABU DE A
605 PV RAMANA DE A
606 B GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY DE A
607 S RANI MANDAL JPO A
608 T RAMAKRISHNA SE A
609 K VENKATESWAR RAO SE A
610 S MANIKRAO SE A
611 U G KRISHNAMURTHY DIRECTOR(Techl) A
612 T RAMAKRISHNAIAH LVDRIVER A

613 P T RAMA DHYANI AAE A
614 M S PRABHAKAR AAE A
615 BJ DHEERENDRANATH SETH A D E A
616 N LAKSHMI PRIYA AE A
617 P SRILATHA AE A
618 K S V RAMA KRISHNA AE A
619 N S N V RAMESH KUMAR AEE A
620 T HARINARAYANA REDDY AEE A
621 P V SATYANARAYANA AEE A
622 M PADMASREE AEE A
623 B PRATAP KUMAR AEE A
624 E BRUNDARANI AEE A
625 V SURYA LAKSHMI CE A
626 A T VIJAI DE A
627 S A HUSSAIN ELECTRICIAN A
628 N VENKATA RAO JPO A
629 A R SHYAM JPO A
630 K NOOKA APPA RAO Office Subordinate A
631 M ARUNALEKHA PO A
632 T SURESHKUMAR SE A
633 P SRINIVAS TYPIST A
634 S K GEETHA TYPIST A
635 K BHARATHAMMA UDC A
636 D SRINIVAS AE A
637 P INDIRA AE A
638 V VISWANATH AE A
639 G S RAVINDRA AEE A
640 K TEJESWARA RAO AEE A
641 G RAMESH KUMAR AEE A
642 K EZEKIEL AEE A
643 G V V S MURTHY ASSISTANT A
644 K RATNA BABU CE A
645 P RAMA MUTYALARAO EE A
646 A KRISHNA REDDY EE A
647 D RAMAKRISHNA REDDY EE A
648 P RAVINDRA REDDY EE A
649 R SUNITA TYPIST A

650 K RAJA AE A
651 V VANITHA AE A
652 K ARUNA KUMAR AE A
653 J RAMALNGESWARA RAO AEE A
654 P SEETHA RAM AEE A
655 K SREEKANTH AEE A
656 R V SRINIVASARAO AEE A
657 K N N RAMAKRISHNA AEE A
658 V SALINI ASSISTANT A
659 Y RAMAMOHANARAO CE A
660 V SATYANARAYANA RAJU EE A
661 B CHANDRASEKHARREDDY EE A
662 B VENKATA KALYANI TYPIST A
663 N V PADMAVATHI AS A
664 C RADHAKRISHNA DIRECTOR A
665 L SUBRAHMANYAM EE A
666 K BABU RAO AEE A
667 B AJAY KUMAR AEE A
668 K SURYANARAYANA AEE 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 Designation
Region 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-ENGR

A 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
YENUGADADHATI VENKATA RAMANA

49 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
SIVALANKA SRINIVASA DURGA MAHESHWARA

205 DUDALA VEERASWAMY AAO T 283 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
Total
Agricultural
system
S.No. District Unit including
losses (all
RESCOs
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

Sri Krishna Commission TRS Full Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sri Krishna Commission TRS Full Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To

Shri Vinod K. Duggal

Dear Shri Duggal ji,

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

Volume – I Consists of Historical Perspective, Income and Expenditure,

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

Deprived of their legitimate share in the fruits of development,

Multiple Dimensions of the Issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deprivations of legitimate share in the fruits of development,

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

With Warm Regards,

(K. Chandrasekhar Rao)

DEMAND FOR TELANGANA STATE

The reason for the opposition of people of Telangana to join Visalandhra

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) set up by the Government

.. It will be in the interest of Andhra as well as Telangana if, for the

The Commission further recommended:

Andhra and Telangana have common interests and we hope these

The Commission came to this conclusion after a dispassionate assessment

i. One of the principal causes of opposition to Visalandhra also

iii. The existing Andhra state has faced a financial problem of

(SRC Report: para 376)

I. Reactions on the Recommendations of the SRC

“If the formation of Visalandhra is postponed, it will never happen. It

Kasu Brahmananda Reddy:

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:

“If Visalandhra is not formed now, it might become

(Andhra Patrika: 14-11-1955)

Andhra State Congress Committee:

“People of Telangana need not be apprehensive about any troubles

(Andhra Patrika: 03-11-1955)

Comments made in Andhra Patrika:

“There is no answer to the question raised by the leaders of

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

On 25-11-1955, the then Chief Minister of erstwhile Andhra State,

- We deem it our special responsibility to develop the Telangana

- We safeguard the rights of the region in the realms of employment

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

- We will be very generous towards them;

- The people of Telangana have not asked us for any of these

II. Financial Problems of the Andhra State

There is a huge deficit in the revenue of the State. It is not at all

Now there is no possibility of using revenue receipts for

Bezawada Gopala Reddy:

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

“Regular payment of monthly salaries to the teachers too has

Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy:

“Andhra Government had to borrow 6 crore rupees in the very first

M. Bhaktavatsalam (Finance Minister of Madras):