Hyderabad:EV Venugopal of the High Court of Telangana filed an order to appoint former acting Chief Justice V. Eshwaraiah, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as the Ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA). The judge is hearing a written petition filed by the City College Old Boys Association, which holds that the appointment proposed by the HCA committee violates its bylaws under October 25, 2024. The petitioner argued that the bylaws provided that the ombudsman was either a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired chief justice of the High Court, and that the appointee did not meet this standard. The petitioner believes that the appointment violates the HCA’s overall decision and violates the Supreme Court’s judgment on the sports association. The petitioner claimed that the Supreme Council’s decision was not only irregular, but also lacked transparency. At the hearing, the judge notified that the HCA CEO (CEO) who issued the notification of the obstacle was not a party to the lawsuit. Observing the matter requires detailed consideration and the judge ordered that all proceedings under the appointment notice shall comply with the results of the written petition. The judge also ordered a notification to the respondents and a further hearing was issued for the matter.
HC restores continuity of service to officers
A two-judge panel in the Telangana High Court put aside a re-election order issued to a female promotion officer in the Women and Child Welfare Department and directed the state to treat her service as the date of its initial appointment until retirement. A panel composed of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda heard a written petition submitted by B. Somasekharamma. The petitioner filed her resignation in 2003 in a departmental lawsuit, but was later allowed to withdraw in 2009. Rather than recovering her with continuous service, she sees it as a new reappointment. The petitioner believes that her resignation was filed under pressure during the hearing of departmental litigation, and that acceptance itself is illegal and invalid due to Section 30(a)(iii) of the AP State and Subordinate Services Rules in 1996 prohibiting the acceptance of resignation in disciplinary litigation. The petitioner argued that once the government allows her to withdraw her resignation, she should resume her resignation with continuous service and be entitled to pensions and retirement benefits. The defendant authorities believe that the petitioner’s resignation was a voluntary tender and was accepted according to the rules. They claimed that she could only rejoin the service as a new appointment in 2009 and therefore had no right to claim services or continuity of retirement benefits in early stages. It was argued that the petitioner failed to establish any legal rights to treat resignation as irrelevant. The panel believes that the acceptance of resignation in departmental litigation is with Rule 30(a)(iii) and therefore illegal. It is observed that resignation later is allowed, but it is not sustainable to regard it as re-election. The Panel directs the authorities to treat the petitioner as continuing to serve for all purposes, except for monetary benefits between resignation and rejoining. The state was instructed to release her pension and retirement benefits within three months, which would be based on 6% interest per year.
HC stops illegal work in Tellapur
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Tellapur city government and the HMDA commissioner to consider a representative of a housing society that accused private builders of illegal construction activities and damage to utilities in Tellapur. The judge is hearing a writ request from the BHEL employee models who support each other by the cooperative Housing and Building Association Limited, which represents residents of a gated community of 1,251 villas. The Petitioners Association alleged that the defendant’s builder had illegally carried out excavation and drainage work, including damage to the STP pipeline and connecting external drainage lines from an insufficient high-rise apartment building with the support of city officials and Kollur Police Department housing officials. The petitioner believes that no response to the authorities’ repeated statements constitutes inaction and violation of tariffs as provided by the City of Telangana Act and the HMDA Act. The petitioner’s legal counsel pointed out that the disputed land was a 1,200 square foot plot adjacent to the park 10 for commercial purposes to benefit the villa owners, but was now developed by private respondents as a residential apartment building, resulting in water supply to more than 400 Villas. The municipal attorney informed the judge that a display notice had been issued to the private builder after the latest complaint. With this in mind, the judge directed the petitioner to submit detailed representatives within three days and ordered the Commissioner and HMDA to consider the competitor’s statements and to pass a reasonable order within three weeks. Prior to this, the judge directed the status quo on site and restricted private builders from carrying out further construction activities.
