High Court Ex-Judge Seeks Full Pension

Hyderabad:A retired judge of High Court of Telangana on Friday approached the State High Court seeking disbursal of her pensionary benefits. A two-judge panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao was dealing with a writ plea filed by Justice G. Sri Devi, retired judge of Telangana High Court. The judicial career of the judge began as an additional district judge in Uttar Pradesh in 2005 and she was elevated as additional judge at the High Court of Allahabad in November 2018. The petitioner thereafter was transferred to the High Court of Telangana where she demitted office in October 2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner alleged that she was receiving a paltry sum as pension and the same was in violation of “one rank, one pension”. The petitioner pointed out that initially she was to receive pensionary benefits under the new pension scheme wherein contributions were made by both the employee and employer. It was the case of the petitioner that in 2024 the government gave an option to choose whether to be covered under the old pension scheme or the new pension scheme and pursuant thereto, the petitioner opted for the old pension scheme. The petitioner complained that pursuant to the various communications, the director, directorate of treasury and accounts, stated that there were no instructions from the Telangana government with regard to sanction of service/family pension with respect of officials who retired from service. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the registrar, Telangana High Court, had requested the Accountant-General to expedite and issue necessary instructions. He argued that the representation ought to have been addressed to director, directorate of treasury and accounts, the competent authority in this regard, and the nodal officer of National Securities Depository Limited. It was also the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents were under an alleged presumption that she was an employee of the state government of Telangana and a government order are required, due to which her pensionary benefits were lingering in uncertainty. The petitioner relied on a judgement of the apex court which held that permitting different states to have different terminal benefits would lead to discrimination the principle of ‘one rank one pension’ and required all retired judges of the High Court to be paid uniform pension. The panel speaking through Justice Sam Koshy inquired as to what was the reason for such inaction and procedural lapses. Government pleader appearing for the state sought some accommodation to obtain instruction and to ascertain the progress of the application. The panel posted the matter to January 5 and directed the respondents to appraise the court on issue.

AP told to consider plea of retiree

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the AP government to consider the claim of a retired Drugs Control Administration officer for full pensionary and retirement benefits, including withheld salary arrears. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Balaiah, complaining of non-grant of full pension, gratuity, pay fixation and other retiral benefits despite his acquittal in all criminal cases. The petitioner contended that although he retired in August 2006, after serving in the parent state of Andhra Pradesh, the authorities failed to extend 100 per cent pension, gratuity, other retirement benefits and 25 per cent arrears of salary from 2002 till retirement, which were allegedly withheld on account of criminal proceedings in which he was ultimately acquitted. He contended that the continued denial of benefits was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution, besides being contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. Counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was initially convicted by a Special Court in an SC/ST case, he was later acquitted, and that repeated representations seeking release of withheld salary and pensionary benefits were not acted upon, particularly after the bifurcation of the state. It was further contended that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, liability in respect of pension and retiral benefits of employees of the erstwhile state must be apportioned between the successor states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. After hearing the submissions, the panel directed the principal secretary, Andhra Pradesh, to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner, along with relevant documents, and to take an appropriate decision within eight weeks.

Accused in case of threatening woman gets pre-arrest bail

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of threatening a woman and circulating her private photographs after the breakdown of a relationship. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the accused seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered by Hussaini Alam police, Hyderabad, alleging offences under the child protection law, information technology law and provisions relating to intimidation and misuse of electronic material. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant stated that she came into contact with the petitioner through social media and that they were in a relationship for several years. She alleged that after she stopped communicating with him in October, the petitioner began threatening her by showing her private photographs to others and pressuring her to meet him, besides issuing threats to her life. Based on her complaint lodged in November, the police registered the case. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant was a major and that the allegations did not attract the provisions of the child protection law invoked in the case. It was submitted that the complaint did not disclose any allegations amounting to offences under those provisions and that the dispute essentially arose after the relationship ended. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and did not require custodial interrogation. After examining the material on record, the judge noted that the complainant was about 20 years old and that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under the child protection law. Observing that the allegations primarily related to threats and misuse of private images, the judge held that custodial arrest was not warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the judge enlarged the petitioner on conditional anticipatory bail.

Heera group asks HC to reduce costs

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reserved verdict on a review petition filed to reduce exemplary costs of `5 crore on the Heera Group. The judge was hearing a review petition filed by Nowhera Shaik, founder of the group, challenging the earlier order by which the court dismissed her writ plea seeking to stall the auction of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate and imposing exemplary costs of `5 crore. The petitioner sought reconsideration of the order only to the limited extent of reduction of costs, contending that the writ petition was filed as a last resort and not with any intention to abuse the process of the court or to waste judicial time. Justice Bheemapaka expressed concern over the growing practice of filing lunch motions to re-agitate issues that stood concluded, observing that such motions were increasingly being used as a means to reopen settled matters. The judge indicated that he would consider the review petition and examine the request for reduction of costs.