The protracted saga of IAS and IPS cadre allocation following the 2014 bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh continues to cast a long shadow over the careers of numerous officers, exemplified by the enduring dilemma of Siva Sankar Lotheti. Nearly twelve years after the division, the disconcerting uncertainty surrounding their rightful cadres persists, marked by a constant flux of orders, legal challenges, and administrative delays.
Lotheti, a 2013-batch IAS officer, has become a focal point in this ongoing battle. His allocation to Telangana by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) was recently overturned by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in February of this year. The tribunal directed the DoPT to allocate Lotheti to his home state, Andhra Pradesh, effectively revoking an earlier DoPT order from October 2024 that had mandated his repatriation to Telangana following a Telangana High Court directive. Lotheti had complied with the High Court-backed DoPT order but subsequently challenged it before the CAT, securing a favourable ruling. However, the DoPT has yet to implement this CAT order.
Frustration over this non-compliance led Lotheti to file contempt proceedings against the DoPT. In response, the CAT issued a firm four-week deadline on April 9th for the DoPT to implement its order with due diligence, scheduling a compliance verification hearing for June 5th. Lotheti’s initial allocation to Telangana occurred during the 2014 cadre redistribution. Yet, relying on a decade-old CAT order, he had been serving in Andhra Pradesh until the recent back-and-forth. For the past six months, Lotheti has been in Telangana, briefly as the CEO of the Aarogyasri health insurance scheme and subsequently attached to the general administrative department since February 20th.
Lotheti’s predicament is not an isolated incident. The futures of seven other IAS officers and three IPS officers remain similarly uncertain, entangled in a web of legal and administrative processes initiated after the bifurcation. Their cases are subject to scrutiny by both the High Court and the CAT, with the DoPT issuing implementation orders based on their rulings, which are then executed by the respective state governments.
In a parallel development, Ronald Rose, a 2006-batch IAS officer currently serving in Andhra Pradesh, recently secured a favourable CAT order seeking his return to Telangana. The same CAT bench that ruled on Lotheti’s case quashed the DoPT’s October order allocating Rose to Andhra Pradesh, directing his allocation to the Telangana cadre within four weeks. This demonstrates the fluidity and ongoing nature of these cadre disputes.
These cases are rooted in challenges to the 2014 cadre distribution, which followed the recommendations of the Pratyush Sinha Committee. Numerous officers, including former Telangana Chief Secretary Somesh Kumar, contested their final allocations before the CAT, often receiving initial relief to serve in their preferred states. However, these CAT orders faced challenges in higher courts, leading to further complications. The Telangana High Court eventually reviewed these cases, upholding the Pratyush Sinha panel’s guidelines and criticising the CAT’s interventions. This triggered a series of repatriations based on the original allocation principles.
Despite the High Court’s stance, many officers who had spent a decade in their chosen states found themselves facing transfers. The DoPT, based on a committee’s review, rejected the appeals of these officers, leading to the movement of several senior officials between the two states. This included the initial transfer of Lotheti to Telangana, along with other IAS officers like Vani Prasad, Vakati Karuna, Amrapali Kata, Chevvuru Hari Kiran, and Srijana Gummalla. Similarly, IPS officers like Anjani Kumar, Abhilasha Bisht, and Abhishek Mohanty faced relocation orders.
Following these DoPT orders, many of the affected officers, including Lotheti and Rose, once again approached the CAT, leading to the recent favourable rulings. The situation has left many officers feeling like pawns in a bureaucratic game, hindering their ability to serve effectively. Retired IAS officer I.Y.R. Krishna Rao, a member of the Pratyush Sinha committee, has even acknowledged the inherent unfairness and errors in the original allocation process, suggesting that after so long, officers should have been allowed to remain in their established postings. The ongoing legal battles and administrative hurdles underscore the deep-seated complexities and the human cost of the protracted cadre allocation dispute.
