Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reiterated the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” while directing the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) and associated bodies to revise the salary of a former coordinator in line with UGC pay scales applicable to associate professors.
Hyderabad:Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reiterated the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” while directing the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) and associated bodies to revise the salary of a former coordinator in line with UGC pay scales applicable to associate professors. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Dr B.N.V. Satyanarayan, an academic holding an MBA, LLB and PhD in business management. The petitioner challenged the continued denial of full UGC pay benefits despite resolutions passed by the Consortium of Institutions of Higher Learning (CIHL), in 2007 and 2012, which authorised parity with directors of gurukulams and associate professors under UGC norms. Despite possessing over 29 years of combined industrial and academic experience and being appointed through a formal selection process, the petitioner was paid a consolidated amount of `37,000—substantially lower than the entitled `72,848 under the UGC 2006 pay scales. Notably, no accommodation or boarding benefits were extended to him, despite these being part of the benefits package for comparable roles. While the respondents claimed that the petitioner was a contract appointee and not eligible for regular pay scales, the judge found this argument inconsistent. The judge observed that the respondents themselves applied retirement norms applicable to government employees upon the petitioner’s superannuation in 2018, thus acknowledging a level of regular service. The judge emphasised the right to minimum regular pay for temporary appointees performing equal work. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, the judge criticised the respondent authorities for selectively implementing resolutions and failing to justify the pay disparity.
Mala Mahanadu files plea on SC quota law
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara ordered notices in a writ plea challenging the Telangana Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2025. The panel was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mala Mahanadu and another. The petitioner challenged the Act, which sub-classifies SC reservations, contending that it was passed without empirical data on backwardness or inadequate representation, violating various provisions of the Constitution. The petitioners also sought to strike down related government orders and the one-man commission report for alleged arbitrariness. The panel granted four weeks for filing responses.
No enquiry, no case, rules HC
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against six individuals, including the director and radiologists of a diagnostic centre, and reiterated that vicarious liability must be established through specific evidence showing direct responsibility or negligence. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Park Line Diagnostic Services and five others, in connection with alleged violations of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PNDT Act). The petitioners were alleged to have violated the provisions of the PNDT Act, primarily for not maintaining Form-F declarations, omission of delivery history details and irregular register maintenance during inspections conducted in August 2019. Counsel for the petitioners argued that no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the appropriate authority, as required under Sections 17 and 17-A of the PNDT Act. It was also pointed out that the hospital did not perform ultrasound scans or handle deliveries, negating the basis for the charges. The absence of proper investigation or evidence collection was highlighted as a critical flaw in the case. The state opposed the plea, contending that factual disputes ought to be examined during trial. After hearing both sides, the judge observed that the mere non-availability of records did not establish criminal intent or complicity on the part of the doctors or the director. The judge emphasised the need for a proper inquiry by the appropriate authority before initiating a prosecution and observed that the failure to conduct such an enquiry rendered the proceedings an abuse of the legal process.
HC takes up PG medicos’ plea
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the evaluation process followed by Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences (KNRUHS) in declaring the results of postgraduate medical examinations conducted in January 2025. The judge is hearing a writ petition filed by postgraduate medical students Variganti Bhavani and two others, questioning the legality of the procedure adopted by the university in announcing their MD/MS results. The petitioners would contend that the respondent authorities failed to follow the procedure prescribed in the draft guidelines issued by the National Medical Commission and violated the principles of transparency and fairness. It was alleged that neither the petitioners were allowed to physically verify their answer scripts nor were copies of the evaluated answer scripts provided to them. The petitioners also relied on the judgment in Dr. P. Kishore Kumar v. State of A.P. (2016(6) ALT 408), which emphasised the right of students to access their evaluated scripts and the need for a fair and transparent assessment process. The petitioners are seeking directions to the university to publish the marks allotted by the examiners, allow re-evaluation of their answer scripts by independent examiners and ensure adherence to the evaluation guidelines prescribed by the regulatory bodies. Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy took note of the submissions and posted the matter for further hearing.
