Biodiversity Board Ex-Chief Wins Case for Parity

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed revision of pay and grant of consequential monetary benefits to the former chairman of the AP State Biodiversity Board, holding that denial of parity with similarly placed statutory functionaries was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Dr R. Hampaiah, who served as chairman from May 2006 till January 2015, complaining of non-implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations despite similarly placed chairpersons in other states being granted the revised pay. The petitioner contended that although the fixed pay prescribed under the Biological Diversity Rules stood revised following acceptance of the Sixth Pay Commission, he continued to draw a lower fixed pay, while chairpersons of the biodiversity boards in states such as Kerala, Gujarat and Uttarakhand were extended the revised scale despite discharging identical statutory functions. Opposing the plea, the state contended that the post of chairperson was a statutory, tenure-based appointment and not a civil post, and that Pay Commission recommendations do not automatically apply to such appointments in the absence of a specific government order. The panel noted that Rule 2(d) of the Biological Diversity Rules defines “Chairperson” to include both the chairperson of the National Biodiversity Authority and that of a State Biodiversity Board, and also took note of a Government of India clarification issued in September 2008 indicating parity in pay and allowances. Rejecting the state’s stand, the panel held that denial of parity despite discharge of identical statutory functions lacked any rational basis and offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work. The panel directed the respondents to revise the petitioner’s pay on par with the Chairman of the Kerala State Biodiversity Board from February 2009 till January 31, 2015, and to disburse the admissible arrears within 12 weeks.

Consider bidder’s plea, Med Infra Corp

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (TGMSIDC) to consider the representation of a bidder seeking conclusion of a pending tender for supply of a medical device. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Vemuri Enterprises alleging inaction in concluding the tender process for procurement of combined spinal epidural set pursuant to tender notice dated January 10, 2025. The petitioner contended that it emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) for the medical item, but the respondents failed to conclude the tender process, including awarding of the contract, in violation of the tender terms and conditions. It was contended that such inaction was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The judge ordered the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and posted the case for further hearing on February 10.

Bail for driver in 120-kg ganja case

The Telangana High Court granted bail to a driver accused in a case involving alleged transportation of 120 kilograms of ganja, a quantity classified as ‘commercial’ under the NDPS Act. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Shaik Munawar, who was arrayed as an accused in connection with the seizure of 120.14 kilograms of dry ganja on March 22. According to the prosecution, police intercepted a vehicle at Samakka Sarakka Gaddelu on the outskirts of Burgampahad and allegedly recovered 55 packets of ganja along with mobile phones. The petitioner was shown as the driver of the vehicle and was booked for offences relating to possession and conspiracy under the NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that his name was added mechanically based on the alleged confession statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible in law. It was argued that there was no independent material such as call data records, documents or digital evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged contraband. After examining the material on record, the judge noted that the petitioner was in judicial custody since May 21 and that the material part of the investigation was completed, though the charge sheet was yet to be filed. Taking into account the period of incarceration and the stage of investigation, the judge held that continued detention was not warranted and enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.