Telangana HC Allows Recovery of Excess Salary

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a former company secretary challenging the recovery of over Rs.8.79 lakh by a public sector company on the grounds of excess salary paid due to erroneous pay fixation. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by K. Rajani, who joined the respondent PSU, a subsidiary of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, in May 2011. She alleged that her salary was revised appropriately with board approvals, and the company’s later claims of overpayment were arbitrary and unjustified. The petitioner argued that she was appointed as assistant manager and promoted to deputy manager in 2017 based on approved board policies. The company contended that an internal audit and a subsequent report by a chartered accountant firm revealed large-scale discrepancies in salary fixation for 18 officers, including the petitioner. It was found that she was initially appointed as a senior officer but received a pay upgrade during her probation — an act the management deemed impermissible and irregular. The respondent company, undergoing revival as a sick industrial company, has already recovered excess payments from several employees. The company cited that the misclassification originated from the actions of a former administrative officer who allegedly colluded with trade unions to grant undue benefits. The judge ruled that excess payments resulting from irregular pay fixation were recoverable, especially when employees were not entitled to such benefits. The judge upheld the company’s decision to recover the amount, stating that the petitioner, being a senior officer and company secretary, was fully aware of the pay irregularities but chose not to raise objections at the relevant time.

Memo on forester post set aside

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside a memo issued by the special chief secretary to the forest department concerning distribution of forest range officer posts between Multi-Zone I and II. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by forest department official Md Irshad Ahmad and five others, challenging the memo issued in January 2023 based on a reference made by the principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF) in November 2022. The petitioners contended that the deputation posts under GHMC and HMDA, being outside the regular local cadre, should not be subjected to distribution across Multi-Zone I and II under the Presidential Orders of 1975 and 2018 (as adopted by Telangana). They argued that the PCCF’s proposal to treat such deputation posts as part of the cadre for zonal distribution despite all such posts falling within Multi-Zone II violated service rules and enabled non-local candidates to be considered for them. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners had addressed a detailed representation to the special chief secretary in November 2022 objecting to the proposal, but the government failed to consider the same before issuing the impugned memo. The petitioners contended that the memo was issued mechanically without independent application of mind. The government pleader submitted that the matter fell within the purview of the special chief secretary and warranted independent examination. Justice Nanda observed that it was incumbent on the authority to consider the objections raised by the petitioners before taking a final view. Accordingly, the judge allowed the writ plea, set aside the memo dated January 2023, and directed the special chief secretary, forest department, to consider the petitioners’ objections afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Mid-day meal scheme workers move HC

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the state’s inaction in extending minimum timescale pay and labour welfare benefits under applicable government orders to several cooks-cum-mid-day meal agency workers. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Farida Begum and 170 others. The petitioners contended that despite discharging regular duties under the Mid-Day Meals Scheme, they wer being denied minimum timescale (MTS) wages as mandated in GO dated November 25, 2002. The petitioners alleged that the inaction of the respondent authorities was in violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" affirmed by the Supreme Court in ‘Jagjeet Singh & Others v. State of Punjab’. The petitioners sought arrears from June 07, 2024, and implementation of welfare schemes through the labour department. It was the case of the petitioners that their representation to the respondent authorities remained unconsidered, reflecting an arbitrary and unjust approach violative of the Constitution. The judge directed the government pleader appearing for the respondents to obtain instructions.

Plea to shift FIR to CCS spiked

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea seeking transfer of an FIR registered before Jawaharnagar police station, Rachakonda district, to the Central Crime Station (CCS), Hyderabad, for effective investigation. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kanala Devi, who contended that the police had failed to conduct a proper investigation despite registration of a case pursuant to a complaint submitted to the commissioner of police. She sought transfer of the FIR under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing inaction and ineffective investigation. The government pleader for home submitted that investigation was duly conducted and a chargesheet had been filed in the matter. Justice Vinod Kumar observed that Section 447 of the BNSS pertained to transfer of cases and appeals and could not be invoked to seek transfer of an FIR where the chargesheet had been filed. The judge held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional magistrate to seek further investigation, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the judge disposed of the writ plea granting liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy before the magistrate concerned.