The ruling came while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by members of the Madhyana Bhojana Vantaka Sangham, cooks and helpers working under the mid-day meal scheme in government schools across the state.
Hyderabad: In a big relief to around 54,400 workers, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court has ordered an increase in their monthly wages from ₹3,000 to ₹17,000. The ruling came while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by members of the Madhyana Bhojana Vantaka Sangham, cooks and helpers working under the mid-day meal scheme in government schools across the state.
Their jobs involved cutting vegetables, cleaning vessels, preparing breakfast, lunch and serving food to students, and thereafter cleaning dishes and also premises used for cooking and dining, so as to keep it ready for the next day. The petitioners have been rendering services for 22 years. They were being paid a paltry honorarium of Rs 3,000 per month. Vijay Kumar Goud, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that under labour laws any person who works for 48 hours a week is entitled to prescribed wages. He complained that non-payment of such basic wages was illegal and contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Case. The judge observed that the purport of the judgment in Jagjit Singh and similar other judgments of Supreme Court is that the quality and sensitivity of the work is predominant factor in assessing whether the persons carrying out the work are entitled to equal pay for the work they carry out. It may be noted that the parameter of quality/sensitivity cannot always be fit in the rigid framework of number of hours/days, and the same needs to be judiciously assessed to determine whether there is equality in the work being carried out keeping in view the effort that goes into carrying out the work. The petitioners working in the mid-day meals programme and catering to a larger community of students, including students from welfare hostels of BC/SC/ST, cannot be said to be rendering inferior service, the judge said. Justice Nagesh further observed that the "mid-day meal scheme” is aimed at making efforts to increase attendance in schools by reducing the dropout rate. Though the services rendered by the petitioners may not be equated with that of the full-time cook-cum-helpers of residential/welfare hostels established and run by the government on a permanent basis, in a one-to-one correspondence manner, this court is of the view that the petitioners are rendering services in a scheme of exigent nature, which is the need of the hour to increase enrolment and retention and ensure nutritious food to children. The petitioners, therefore, can be paid on a similar footing as of a contingent worker". The judge extended the benefit to petitioners and directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of Rs 17,000 per month, which is the minimum consolidated pay of a contingent worker.
HC hears life sentence on convict in matrimonial case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Battacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao deferred the hearing of a criminal appeal challenging a life sentence imposed in connection with a brutal murder arising from a matrimonial dispute. The panel was dealing with a plea filed by Gandhamalla Yellaiah. According to the prosecution, a domestic conflict allegedly escalated into a fatal assault with an axe. It was contended that five members of the family were initially accused of jointly committing the murder, but only Yellaiah was convicted before the Session Court. Counsel for the appellant raised serious concerns about the sufficiency and consistency of evidence presented during the trial. He pointed out that there was no direct forensic link between Yellaiah and the murder weapon. The axe, recovered two days after the incident, reportedly did not bear any fingerprints matching the accused and forensic analysis failed to conclusively identify it as the murder weapon through blood evidence, counsel argued. The public prosecutor on the other hand contradicted the submissions advanced by the appellant and contended that the Session Court did not commit any error in convicting the appellant. He pointed out that the crime committed by the appellant was one of heinous nature and as such he is not entitled to any relief. The panel after hearing both the sides posted the matter for orders on June 25.
Hunter Lounge moves HC for serving hookah
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging alleged police interference with the operations of a lounge serving hookah in Madhapur, Hyderabad. The judge was hearing a petition filed by the proprietor of Hunter Lounge (Sheesha) who alleged that the Station House Officer of Madhapur Police Station and the assistant commissioner of police, were arbitrarily banning the serving of flavoured hookahs at his establishment, without citing any legal prohibition under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTP Act), 2003. It was contended that such interference had no basis in law and was causing undue harassment and disruption to his legitimate business operations. The petitioner sought a direction to permit the continued serving of flavoured hookahs in the coffee shop, arguing that his establishment does not violate any statutory rules or health regulations. The judge directed the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing.
Electricity is a necessity, rules HC
Justice Surepalli Nanda of Telangana High Court reiterated that electricity is a basic necessity and cannot be withheld to an occupant of premises without due process of law. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf seeking disconnection of electricity supply to a disputed occupant of its property at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The judge held that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an "occupier" of premises is entitled to electricity and that such disputes cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner alleged that unofficial respondent illegally occupied its property and was granted an electricity connection by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (TSSPDCL) in violation of law. The Board contended that the occupant was not a legally inducted tenant and had failed to produce the required documentation despite repeated notices. TSSPDCL argued that the occupant applied for the connection as an occupier and that electricity could not be denied solely on account of ownership disputes, which should be resolved through civil litigation. The occupant, in turn, produced documents confirming the tenancy rights and claimed that the supply was necessary to carry on business, invoking the constitutional right to life. Citing multiple Supreme Court decisions, the judge reaffirmed that electricity is a basic necessity and cannot be withheld without due process. The judge also emphasised that the Electricity Board’s role is limited to verifying occupancy, not adjudicating ownership disputes. Since the petitioner did not challenge the proceedings of December 2014 that advised them to seek civil remedies, the judge found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, observing that tenancy and title disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums.
