Plea Seeks Creche Facility in Telangana HC

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea seeking establishment of a creche facility within the High Court premises at Hyderabad. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Nandikonda Narsing Rao was dealing with a plea filed by advocate T. Dhangopal Rao seeking directions to the state and the Registrar (OSD) of the High Court to forthwith establish a creche facility in compliance with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the request was based on information obtained through a Right to Information application addressed to the Registrar (OSD) regarding compliance with Section 11A(1) and 11A(2) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, which mandate establishments employing a specified number of employees to provide creche facilities.

During the hearing, counsel representing the High Court contended that the proposal for establishing a creche facility was under consideration and linked to ongoing construction plans within the High Court premises. It was pointed out that approximately Rs 1.25 crore was prescribed for the project and that an additional amount of about Rs 2.52 crore would be required. Counsel further argued that several issues including availability of space, safety considerations and logistical feasibility within the High Court complex were under examination. Certain locations, including parking areas were considered but concerns relating to security and administrative feasibility remained. After hearing the submissions, the panel posted the matter to March 25 for further consideration.

HC rap delay in regularisation

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court expressed displeasure over non-compliance with its earlier order directing authorities to consider regularising municipal workers who had completed five years of service. She warned that the concerned officials would have to appear before the Court if the directions were not implemented by the next date. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by S. Bixam and others, who alleged that the authorities of Miryalaguda Municipality and senior state officials failed to comply with directions to consider the claim for regularisation of their services from the date they completed five years of service. The earlier order directed the authorities to take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order and communicate the same to the petitioners. According to the contempt petition, despite the clear timeline fixed by the Court, the authorities allegedly did not pass any order regarding the regularisation of workers. In the writ petition, the workers contended that they were working as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) employees in the municipality since the late 1980s and completed the required period of service.

They sought regularisation of their services in terms of the government orders governing municipal workers. The petitioners sought to initiate contempt proceedings against senior officials including Principal Secretary, municipal administration and urban development department, T.K. Sreedevi; Principal Secretary, finance department, Sandeep Kumar Sultania; and T.K. Sreedevi in her capacity as commissioner and director of municipal administration. During the hearing, the Court directed the authorities to ensure strict compliance with the earlier order and warned that failing which, the concerned officials must appear before the Court on March 27.

HC relief for OMFS surgeons

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court suspended the operation of a public notice issued by the Telangana State Medical Council restraining oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from performing aesthetic procedures and hair transplantation. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Dr Madhuri Bannigol and several other oral and maxillofacial surgeons. It was contended that the impugned notice restrained the doctors specialised in oral and maxillofacial surgery from undertaking aesthetic or cosmetic procedures, including hair transplantation, which, according to the petitioner, falls within the scope of their postgraduate training. Challenging the notice, the petitioners argued that the Medical Council lacked the statutory authority to regulate or restrict the professional practice of dental specialists. E. Venkata Siddhartha, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the powers of the medical council are confined to practitioners governed by the medical regulatory regime and cannot extend to professionals regulated under the Dentists Act, 1948. It was argued that state medical councils and state dental councils are distinct statutory bodies created under separate enactments, and one regulatory authority cannot interfere with the professional domain of practitioners governed by another statutory council. Counsel further contended that the Dental Council of India prescribes a comprehensive postgraduate curriculum for MDS in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, which includes training in facial aesthetic procedures, reconstructive surgeries, and related interventions involving the cranio-maxillofacial region.

He also pointed out to a clarification made in the Rajya Sabha on 16 December stating that OMFS specialists trained under the MDS Course Regulations, 2017 framed by the Dental Council of India are permitted to perform aesthetic surgical procedures and selected hair-restoration procedures limited to the cranio-maxillofacial region. The judge accordingly suspended the operation of the public notice issued on June 26, and as an interim measure directed to ensure that OMFS specialists are not restrained from performing aesthetic procedures and related cranio-maxillofacial interventions in accordance with their training, pending final adjudication of the writ petition.