HC Examines Validity of Pension Law Changes

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea questioning the constitutional validity of certain provisions introduced through the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) (Second Amendment) Act, 2026, which govern regularisation of services, qualifying service for pension, applicability of the National Pension Scheme and the enforceability of court orders relating to pensionary benefits. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is hearing a writ petition filed by N. Mallaiah. The petitioner contended that the Act of 2026 inserted new provisions into the parent legislation would adversely affect employees whose services were initially rendered on a non-regular basis and subsequently regularised. He further contended that the impugned provisions restrict the counting of service for pensionary benefits only from the date of regularisation or appointment against a substantive vacancy carrying a regular pay scale and make the National Pension Scheme applicable to employees appointed on or after September 1, 2004. Counsel for the petitioner contended that section 7F, which stipulates that courts shall not enforce judgments, decrees or orders directing grant of pension contrary to the amended provisions. And that the state authorities have failed to regularise his services from the date of his initial appointment and have consequently denied him the benefit of old pension by refusing to count the service rendered prior to regularisation. After hearing the submissions, the panel directed the State to file its response and posted the matter for further consideration.

Proceedings before self-appointed arbitrator stayed

Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy of the Telangana High Court granted an interim stay on further proceedings in an arbitration case after observing that, prima facie, unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of the parties is not permissible in law. The Judge is dealing with a civil revision petition filed by Pukhraj Kewalchand Rathore and another, owners of a commercial building challenging the jurisdiction of a person who allegedly assumed the role of sole arbitrator on his own and proceeded with arbitral proceedings. According to the petitioners, unofficial respondents were tenants in a commercial property at Padmasri Gardens, Vattinagulapalli Village, Rangareddy district, under rental agreements executed in 2022 and 2023. The petitioners alleged that the tenants defaulted in payment of rent from October 2025 and later expressed their intention to vacate the premises. Disputes subsequently arose regarding the claim of the tenant for `50 lakh towards alleged business investments in the premises, apart from refund of the security deposit. The petitioners contended that one of the unofficial respondents issued a notice in January claiming that he constituted an arbitral tribunal with himself as sole arbitrator and informed them that a claim petition and interlocutory application were filed before him. It was alleged that he passed an ex parte interim order and called upon the petitioners to participate in the proceedings. The petitioners maintained that they immediately objected to the very constitution of the arbitral tribunal, contending that an arbitrator could not be appointed unilaterally and that any such appointment would be void in law. The petitioners further alleged that despite repeated objections and references to Supreme Court judgments governing the appointment of arbitrators, the respondent continued with the proceedings and declined to terminate them. Counsel for the petitioners, Shyam S. Agarwal submitted that the purported arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and was proceeding in collusion with the tenant-claimants to obtain an award against them. Considering the submissions, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy noted that the petitioners specifically raised objections regarding the appointment of the arbitrator immediately upon receiving notice. The Court observed that, prima facie, unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of the parties is impermissible. Accordingly, the Court stayed all further proceedings in the Arbitration Case and posted the matter to June 19.

Action sought on mosque land encroachment plea

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the inspector/auditor, incharge of State Waqf Board, Gadwal district, and other authorities concerned to take appropriate action on a plea seeking protection of mosque property from alleged encroachment in Jogulamba Gadwal district. The Judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Jamia Masjid, represented by its mutawalli Syed Lal seeking protection of agricultural land admeasuring 19.02 acres in Survey No. 67/A of Jallapur village, Manopad mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal district. The petitioner alleged that the authorities failed to take effective steps to safeguard the waqf property from encroachers despite receiving representations in this regard. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged encroachment was carried out by the brother of the petitioner and sought intervention of the authorities to protect the property. It was contended that the inaction of the authorities violated the rights of the petitioner and was contrary to the provisions of the Waqf Act and the rules framed thereunder. The writ petition sought a declaration that the failure of the authorities to protect the waqf land was illegal and arbitrary and requested directions to secure the property from encroachment. Disposing of the writ petition, the court directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.