Hyderabad: The two-judge panel of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda in the High Court of Telangana will decide a writ plea to challenge the ongoing recovery of commuter pension amounts for older employees of United Bank of India, nine years and ten months away. The team is hearing writs from Ravikanti Ramesh and 29 other retired employees of United Bank of India, who argued that the recovery is contrary to the pension payment order issued by United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations (Employees' Pension Regulations) of 1995. The position was fully restored within 9 years and 10 months, according to the exchange factors and the pension order. It is further argued that the continued recovery beyond this period constitutes an injustice of the United Bank of India. The petitioner pointed out that the exchange value is recovered from the monthly pension without any interest being charged, and that failure to recover the full pension upon full recovery is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any reasonable objectives or understandable differences. The petitioner is seeking to declare Article 41 (5) a super article of the Constitution and pray to the respondents, pray to the respondents to immediately restore the full pension of all petitioners to all petitioners from their respective commuting dates. The petitioner also seeks a refund and additional deductions in the case of a written plea and continues further deductions. The group posts the matter after the holidays for a hearing.
Contempt case was rejected
Judge Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed the charge against Rajeev Trivedi, chief secretary of the IAS; K. Ramakrishna Rao, IAS; Mahesh Bhagawath, IPS; and Ravirala, ips. The judge is dealing with a case of contempt arising from a writ request made by Shaik Janimiya. The court passed an earlier order directed that the Certificate of Service of January 8, 2017 was taken into account within four weeks of the Certificate of Service of January 8, 2017. Additional advocates invited the court to pay attention to the lawsuit issued by the Chief of Police and proposed by the order of the learned single judge that the authorities had made a decision and conveyed the same decision to the consensual petitioner. Therefore, as the lawyer demands, no contempt can be despised. Although the lawsuit was released in August 2018 and received by a written petitioner, he refused the information and was convicted of contacting the court with unclean hands, according to the official. The court recorded the ruling that the authorities produced the document at the earliest point in time and that the petitioner had fixed the signature to the document. In further inquiry, the petitioner believed that it was an unintentional mistake for the petitioner to file a temp case. “The court tends to believe that the contempt petitioner attempts to gain an advantage in the complaint filed in the tempt affidavit by holding up documents of life and filing a contempt case. The contempt petitioner successfully eliminates the fraud that the court plays fraud in court and conducts the case in the opposite case. Severe abuse of the legal process,” said Judge Anil Kumar. Therefore, the judge imposed a fee of Rs 5,000 on the petitioner to pay the relief fund of the Chief Minister.
Criminal cases in family disputes canceled
Judge Juvvadi Sridevi of the High Court of Telangana ruled that when the charges fail to reach the threshold for cognizable crimes, or are essentially rooted in a civil dispute, ongoing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse process, thus violating the criminal proceedings of six family members, suspected of committing crimes related to conssipercy, and involving crimes with six families, and committing mutual crimes with them. The criminal claim was filed by Lingala Venkatesh Goud and five others in an attempt to cancel the lawsuit before XXI Metropolitan District Court Medchal-Malkajgiri. The dispute originated from a complaint filed on July 1, 2020, where the woman claimed her brother, along with other family members, conspired to usurpolize a 200-square-foot property in Bahadurpalli that is legally owned by her children. She claimed that the defendant forged a sale agreement by forging her and her husband's signature and using forged documents to obtain an injunction in the civil court. When the complainant faced them, she claimed that her family abused and beat her, prompting her to file a criminal lawsuit. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the case was a civil dispute between family members and no guarantee of criminal prosecution. It was emphasized that the subject property was not in the name of the complainant or husband, but in the name of the adult child, which made the legality of the sales agreement questionable. The petitioner argued that the FIR and fee schedule lacked specific allegations and failed to disclose the necessary elements of the IPC's alleged crime. After reviewing the case records and arguments of both parties, the judge found several mistakes in the investigation, including failure to record statements ranging from witnesses to controversial sales agreements. It was pointed out that of the nine witnesses listed, four were the complainant and her family, and the remaining five were Panch or official witnesses – none of them were direct, independent witnesses were the so-called crime. The judge also noted that no specific details were provided regarding the alleged abuse or assault and that no common intention was charged among all defendants. It was observed that the complainant and petitioner were brothers and sisters with a history of family disputes and may have resorted to criminal proceedings to resolve personal scores.
