Telangana High Court: Coop Bank manager Wins Back Wages

Hyderabad: Justice Namavarku Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court directed the payment of back wages to an accountant and bank manager of the Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank. The judge allowed a writ plea filed by A. Rajaram Reddy, chief executive officer (CEO) of the bank. Several allegations were made against him, as a result of which 16 charges were framed. Upon inquiry, 12 out of the 16 charges were held to be proved against the petitioner by the enquiry officer in June 2011, and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The High Court had earlier held that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner was unfair and directed the bank to reconsider the punishment. Upon reinstatement, the petitioner was demoted to a lower grade in service and was reinstated as an accountant/branch manager. The respondents treated the petitioner’s period of dismissal from service — from 13.06.2011 to the date of joining as accountant/ branch manager (i.e., 02.02.2024) — as “dies-non,” and no salary/remuneration for that period was paid. This decision came under challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner stated that he was compelled to give an undertaking in writing that he would not claim any salary or service benefits from June 2011 to February 2024. He contended that he had suffered punishment through the demotion from CEO to accountant/branch manager, and that the respondents ought not to have imposed an additional punishment by denying back wages. The court found that the petitioner, being a physically challenged person, was unlikely to find other employment and was compelled to accept the lower designation. When he insisted on salary, the respondent authorities obtained an undertaking from him under duress that he would not claim any salary or service benefits for the period. Allowing the writ petition, the judge held that while the petitioner was not entitled to full back wages, he was entitled to 50 per cent of the salary for the period in question.

Habeas corpus plea questioned

A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court questioned the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking production of her missing father, who was last known to have travelled to Kerala for work. The panel of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ plea filed by Kollati Sai Hanisha, who alleged that her father, Seshagiri Rao, had been missing since May and that the respondent authorities had failed to act effectively on her complaint. The petitioner would contend that a police complaint was filed at Chilkalguda police station but no steps were taken by the authorities to trace her father. On instructions, the state submitted that the missing person was believed to be in Kerala, and since the local police had no jurisdiction in the matter, the complaint was closed. It was argued that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable in the case of missing persons and that such pleas were governed by settled law of the Supreme Court, which held that habeas corpus applies only in cases of illegal custody or confinement. The panel questioned how a habeas corpus plea could be sustained in the absence of any allegation of illegal detention and observed that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to pursue the missing person complaint through proper channels. On a request made by the petitioner’s counsel seeking time to obtain further instructions, the panel posted the matter for hearing after the summer vacation.

Shifting school in Saidabad: DEO inaction challenged

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, in a vacation court, took on file a writ plea complaining that the state education authorities were not considering shifting of school premises within 200 metres. The judge directed the district education officer and other authorities concerned to consider the representation of a private school management seeking shift permission and essential temporary recognition (ETR) for conducting classes at the new premises. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by VIP Educational Society, which operates a private school in Saidabad. The institution approached the court alleging inaction by the respondents in processing their applications dated February 10 and May 3. These applications sought permission to shift Classes VI to X to a new location, situated 200 metres from the original site in Saidabad, and to continue Classes I to V at their existing premises in Shareef Tower, Saidabad. The petitioners submitted that due to a dispute with the landowner of the original premises, they were compelled to shift a portion of their operations. Despite applying for shift permission and ETR as per statutory requirements, the authorities allegedly failed to act on the applications. They also informed the court that they had duly submitted an application for renewal of their licence for the next ten years. Taking note of the submissions, the judge directed the respondents, particularly the district education pfficer, to consider the petitioner’s representations and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Khammam civic body told not to demolish private properties

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the Vacation Court, restrained the Khammam Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive steps to demolish private properties without following due procedure. The judge disposed of a writ plea filed by Sambhangi Appa Rao and three others who had challenged the alleged attempts by municipal authorities to demolish their properties situated at Station Road, Khammam. The petitioners contended that the civic body was attempting to carry out demolitions under the guise of road widening, without issuing notice or initiating proceedings as per the Municipal Corporations Act or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013). The respondent authorities submitted that while a survey was conducted, no demolition had taken place, and assured that if any acquisition or demolition was necessary in the future, it would be done in accordance with the law. Taking note of these submissions, the judge directed the municipal authorities not to demolish or dispossess the petitioners from their properties without adhering to due legal procedures.