Are Market Agents Needed, Asks Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court questioned the legality of issuance and continuance of commission agent licences and alleged encroachments at the Gudimalkapur vegetable market.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Vegetable Commission Agents Welfare Association, represented by its general secretary R. Manik Prabhu, seeking directions against the director of agricultural marketing and other authorities.

The association contended that the respondent authorities permitted and issued commission agent licences in violation of the Telangana Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act and GOs, and allowed commercial activities in areas earmarked exclusively for parking within the Gudimalkapur market. It was contended that commission agents illegally encroached upon the parking area and that repeated representations and complaints made by the association were not acted upon. The association contended that such administrative inaction was arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional.

The petitioner sought directions restraining the authorities from issuing fresh commission agent licences without availability of adequate shop premises or designated commercial space, cancellation of licences allegedly granted in the parking area and removal of encroachments. The respondent authorities sought time to obtain instructions.

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the Telangana Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited in a writ plea filed by retired employees seeking service and retiral benefits.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by V Krishna Reddy and 57 others, retired employees of the erstwhile AP State Textile Processing Cooperative Society Limited (APROS), complaining of inaction and denial of service related and consequential retirement benefits by the respondent authorities.

The petitioners contended that they were appointed between 1978 and 1981 and continued in service even after the statutory merger of APROS with APCO under Act 14 of 1983, which expressly protected their pay scales, tenure, service conditions and terminal benefits. It was contended that they were absorbed pursuant to proceedings of January 1995 and were entitled to revised pay scales and variable dearness allowance as envisaged under the original proceedings.

Counsel Deepak Misra for the petitioners contended that a subsequent amendment curtailing monetary benefits under the said proceedings was declared illegal by the High Court in an earlier writ plea, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in August 2023 and had attained finality. Despite implementation of the judgment in favour of certain employees, identical benefits were denied to the present petitioners solely on the ground of delay.

It was contended that rejection of the petitioners representations was contrary to an earlier order of the High Court directing consideration of their claims in the light of the binding judgment, and that the earlier decision operated in rem and was required to be applied uniformly to all similarly situated employees. Denial of such benefits, it was argued, amounted to hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power in violation of constitutional guarantees. After hearing the matter at the threshold, Justice Pulla Karthik ordered notice to the respondents and directed them to file their response.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea seeking formulation of a duty chart and job description for ophthalmic assistants.

The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Telangana Ophthalmic Assistants / Optometrists Association, seeking directions to the public health and family welfare department and other authorities to frame a duty chart and job description for ophthalmic assistants in accordance with the Centre’s guidelines issued in 2017.

The petitioners contended that despite clear policy guidelines issued by the Centre, the state had failed to notify the roles and responsibilities of ophthalmic assistants, even as several other states had implemented the 2017 guidelines.

It was contended that the absence of a defined duty chart resulted in uncertainty and hardship, particularly for private para-medical ophthalmic assistants working in the private sector. The petitioners contended that due to the lack of clarity on their permissible functions, private ophthalmic assistants were being subjected to harassment and criminal proceedings by enforcement authorities.

Seeking consequential relief, the association also sought a direction to the Telangana Medical Council not to initiate criminal action against private para-medical ophthalmic assistants until a formal duty chart and job description are framed and notified. Justice Bheemapaka directed the respondent authorities to file their response.