Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka ruled that Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (Nims) is governed by its own statute, regulations, and standing orders and is not bound by UGC or state university norms and further observed that the duties of librarian could not be equated to those of teaching staff.
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka ruled that Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (Nims) is governed by its own statute, regulations, and standing orders and is not bound by UGC or state university norms and further observed that the duties of librarian could not be equated to those of teaching staff. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by R. Komala Rao, a librarian at Nims, challenging the institute’s decision to retire him at 58 and deny him re-designation as a professor. The petitioner sought parity with librarians working in state and Central universities, including AIIMS, where the age of superannuation is 60-62 years and the designation is on par with professors. He contended that his role should be treated as a teaching post and claimed entitlement to an extended retirement age with all consequential benefits. Relying on various Government Orders and the UGC pay structure, the petitioner argued that Nims, being a state university, must adopt uniform re-designations and retirement benefits. It was also contended that librarians fall within the definition of ‘teacher’. However, the judge found no merit in the petition. The judge observed that superannuation of petitioner at age 58 was in accordance with Standing Order No. 27 and that there was no violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The judge also noted that the impugned rejection issued in January 2019 was never challenged and attained finality. He concluded that the petitioner, having accepted the terms of employment with full awareness, could not invoke judicial remedy at the fag end of his career, applying the doctrine of estoppel.
Recalculate sexagenarian tax dues: HC
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea challenging the actions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and other authorities in imposing property tax of over Rs 70 lakh on a sexagenarian who alleged that it was wrongly calculated based on an inflated property size. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Meraj Ahmed Siddiqui. According to the petitioner, his flat located at Span Solitaire, Somajiguda measures only 1,122 square feet. However, authorities allegedly assessed tax on a 2,122 square feet area without conducting any physical verification or offering an opportunity of hearing. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner had made earlier payments, including a cheque of Rs 20 lakh and another for Rs 23 lakh, both of which were dishonoured. He also contended that the petitioner paid Rs 3 lakh towards property tax in 2023. Hearing the plea, the judge directed the zonal commissioner, GHMC, to consider the petitioner’s representation for correction of the recorded property area and corresponding revision of the tax demand. As an interim arrangement, the judge directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 5 lakh within three days along with the representation, which shall be adjusted against the outstanding tax dues.
HC reinstates Home Guard
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court reinstated a home guard with all consequential benefits, removed from the rolls for his prolonged and unauthorised absence. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Vadla Veeranna, challenging the removal order issued in April 2016, passed by the police superintendent, Sangareddy district. He was removed from the rolls of the home guards organisation on the ground of long unauthorised absence allegedly without conducting a formal inquiry. The petitioner who was working as a driver home guard under the MT Section of the Sangareddy district police, contended that the impugned removal order was passed in violation of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949, and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. He further argued that he was entitled to similar relief already granted by the High Court in comparable cases involving other Home Guards. The Government Pleader, however, argued that the petitioner was absent from duty since August 2013 and despite notices issued, he failed to appear before the inquiry committee. He further argued that the removal order was lawful and did not require interference. Justice Nanda, upon perusal of the record, observed that the impugned order lacked adherence to due process and further authorities failed to provide any record of an inquiry having been conducted. The court held that such an omission amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The judge cited previous judgments of the High Court where it was held that even in cases of serious allegations, the authorities are not permitted to act arbitrarily without inquiry and without recording reasons as mandated by the rules. The court noted that the petitioner was similarly placed as other Home Guards who were reinstated by earlier court orders, and that there was no valid ground to deny him similar relief. Taking into consideration the physical health and seniority of the petitioner, the judge directed the authorities to reinstate him into service and grant all service-related benefits that may have accrued.
HC notice over delayed pension
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court ordered notice to Telangana principal secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, and the managing director of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWS&SB) in a contempt case pertaining to delayed pension benefits. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by K. Subash Chander Reddy, a retired deputy general manager of HMWS&SB. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities failed to comply with the earlier direction passed by the judge which required the respondents to pay interest on his delayed pension and other retirement benefits. In the writ plea, the judge held that the petitioner was entitled to 8 per cent interest on belated pensionary benefits from the date of retirement, i.e., September 30, 2015, till the actual dates of payment in 2020 and 2021. The judge observed that there were no disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement, and the eventual dropping of charges confirmed his entitlement. The petitioner would allege that despite clear directions, the authorities have failed to implement the order within the time stipulated. Accordingly, the judge ordered that notice be issued to respondents and posted the matter for further adjudication.
