OPS Row: HC Asks State To Clarify Stand on 1999 Recruits

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea seeking extension of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to a group of State government employees appointed pursuant to Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) Notification of December 1999.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing the writ plea filed by V. Lachi Reddy and 26 others. The petitioners, who were recruited to various Group-III executive and non-executive posts such as deputy tahsildar, sub-registrar, assistant commercial tax officer, and others, contended that although the vacancies related to the period prior to August 31, 2000, appointments were issued only in the year 2005, which was due to prolonged litigation and administrative delay attributable entirely to the government. Counsel for the petitioners contended that candidates appointed earlier in 2002 from the very same notification were extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Government of India introduced a New Pension Scheme for Central government employees, pursuant to which the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh adopted the New Pension Scheme for State government employees appointed on or after September 1, 2004, by issuing Government Order, finance department, dated September 22, 2004, amending the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 wherein government servants appointed on or after the cut-off date were excluded from the old pension regime.

Counsel further contended that the State’s failure to notify all available vacancies in a timely manner, two distinct categories of employees emerged from the same recruitment notification. He further contended that such classification was arbitrary and discriminatory, as the delay in appointment was not attributable to the candidates but solely to governmental inaction. The employees selected against vacancies advertised prior to the introduction of the New Pension System, but appointed later due to administrative reasons, are entitled to a one-time option to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme. The panel directed the Government Pleader appearing for the State to obtain instructions.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside the constitution of the Towliath (Management) Committee of Dargah Hazrath Imam Ali Shah R.H., Balapur, and directed the Telangana State Waqf Board to reconstitute the committee in accordance with a binding family compromise deed and earlier court directions. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Syed Mohammed Mohiuddin Quadri.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings of December 2024, issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board under Section 63 of the Waqf Act, appointing unofficial respondents as president and members of the Towliath Committee.

The petitioner contended that disputes relating to succession and management of the Dargah stood conclusively settled by a family compromise recorded in a case and approved in February 1960, under which his father, late Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri, was declared president, with succession to vest in his legal heirs. He relied on subsequent binding judicial orders, including a division bench judgment in a writ appeal and an order in civil revision petition, which directed the Waqf Board to reconstitute the committee strictly in terms of the compromise and to appoint the president from the first branch of the family. It was alleged that despite repeated representations, the Waqf Board ignored these directions and appointed a daughter’s son as president, bypassing the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased president.

Opposing the plea, the Waqf Board raised objections on maintainability, contending that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Act, and further argued that the appointments ensured representation of the first branch and that Article 14 of the Constitution did not permit preferential treatment between a son and a daughter’s son. The unofficial respondents supported this stand and contended that disputed questions of fact could not be examined in writ jurisdiction.

Rejecting the objections, the judge held that availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of the chequered litigation history and repeated binding directions issued by the High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Interpreting the compromise deed, the judge held that succession to the post of president lies with the legal heir of the deceased president, and that while equality may be claimed between a son and a daughter, a son and a grandson (daughter’s son) cannot be treated as standing on the same footing. The judge observed that when a son of the deceased president is alive, a daughter’s son cannot claim equal entitlement to succeed.

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings of December 2024 were set aside. The judge also directed the Telangana State Waqf Board to reconstitute the Towliath Committee within eight weeks, after considering the claims of all stakeholders strictly in terms of the compromise deed and earlier judicial directions.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the parents and sister of an accused in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the complaint and the charge sheet failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against them. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition arising out of a complaint alleging offences relating to cruelty, cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, theft and criminal conspiracy, along with offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The de facto complainant alleged that at the time of her marriage in December 2011, substantial gold, jewellery and immovable properties were given, and that the accused persons later demanded transfer of those properties, subjected her to harassment, forcibly terminated her pregnancy abroad and retained her jewellery and personal documents. Examining the material on record, the judge noted that the complaint and the charge sheet did not contain specific particulars regarding the jewellery allegedly retained, such as its description, weight or value, nor was any recovery effected during the investigation. In the absence of such foundational facts, the judge held that offences relating to criminal breach of trust and theft were not made out.

With respect to allegations of harassment and property demands, the judge recorded that the spouses were largely residing in the United States, while the parents were living in Hyderabad and the sister was residing separately. The allegations against them were found to be vague and general, limited to unspecified telephonic demands without supporting details. On the allegation of forced termination of pregnancy in the US, the judge noted the absence of medical records and further observed that no sanction under Section 188 CrPC was obtained to prosecute an offence allegedly committed outside India. Holding that the allegations were omnibus and unsupported by material particulars, the judge quashed the criminal proceedings insofar as they related to the parents and sister of the husband.

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused the state’s application seeking urgent hearing of a writ appeal on GHMC ward delimitation.

Earlier in the day, State Advocate General A. Sudershan Reddy moved an oral application for a lunch motion before the panel of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar. It was the case of the State that the single judge had directed the final map along with ward-wise population to be made public within 24 hours. The panel, however, said that the government would file appeal in the regular manner and the panel will hear when listed.