Telangana HC Directs Centre To Release Eligible Pension Of Retd. HC judge

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the central government to release the eligible pension of retired High Court Judge. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda took on record the statement of the Additional Solicitor General Narasimha Sharma that the office of Accountant General on March 13 sent up the proposals. The panel was dealing with a writ plea filed by Justice G. Sri Devi, a retired judge of Telangana High Court. The judicial career of the judge began as an additional district judge in the state of Uttar Pradesh in 2005 and she was eventually elevated as an additional judge at High Court of Allahabad in November 2018. The petitioner thereafter was transferred to High Court of Telangana where she demitted office in October 2022 on attaining age of superannuation. The petitioner would allege that she is presently receiving a paltry sum of pension and the same is in violation of “one rank, one pension”. It is the case of the petitioner that in 2024 the government gave an option to choose whether to be covered under the old pension scheme or the new pension scheme and pursuant thereto, the petitioner opted for old pension scheme. The petitioner complained that pursuant to the various communications Director, Directorate of treasury and accounts stated that there are no instructions from the Government of Telangana with regard to sanction of service/family pension with respect of officials who retired from service. It is also grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are under an alleged presumption that the petitioner is an employee of the state government of Telangana and government order are required, due to which the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are now lingering in uncertainty, solely because of misunderstanding and inaction of the respondents. Closing the writ plea on the assurance of central government, the panel made clear that the eligibility should be finalized within eight weeks. HC Warns Father of A Minor For Not Complying With Interim Custody Directions Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court closed a contempt case with a warning to the father of a minor child for not strictly complying with interim custody directions, while also setting aside an order of the Child Welfare Committee granting him custody. The court was dealing with a contempt case and a connected writ petition filed by the child’s maternal grandparents, G. Viswanadha Naidu and another. They challenged an order of Child Welfare Committee placing the child in the custody of the father and alleged violation of interim directions of the High Court. The petitioners would contend that their daughter died shortly after childbirth and the child had since been living with them. They had pointed out that guardianship proceedings were initiated before the Family Court at Medchal. During the pendency of those proceedings, the father allegedly obtained an order from the Child Welfare Committee granting him custody. The judge held that the committee lacked jurisdiction, observing that the dispute was a custody issue between family members and did not fall within the scope of a “child in need of care and protection” under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Noting that the father had not strictly complied with the directions of High Court on shared custody, the judge said the conduct gave rise to contempt proceedings. However, considering that he is the natural parent, the court closed the contempt case with a warning. The court set aside an order of Child Welfare Committee and restored custody of the child to the grandparents until the Family Court decides the guardianship case, while permitting the father visitation and weekend custody. HCA Directed To Release Pending Amount Of Stadium Seating Expenditure Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court granted Hyderabad Cricket Association and other authorities a final opportunity to comply with earlier directions of High Court in a writ petition concerning payment of contractual dues arising from the supply and installation of stadium seating at the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium. The contempt case was filed by M/s Keyura alleging that the authorities had failed to implement the earlier order of Court in the writ petition which directed the release of Rs. 3.45 crore towards pending contractual dues and refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) for the completed work. In the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that it was awarded a purchase order for supply and installation of 39,338 tip-up chairs at the stadium for a total contract value of about Rs. 8.50 crore. The petitioner submitted that it had completed the entire supply and installation work by 2024 following which the respondent authorities released part payments amounting to Rs. 6.62 crore. However, the balance amount of Rs. 3.40 crore along with the EMD of Rs.5 lakh remained unpaid despite repeated representations and issuance of a legal notice. It was further argued that the petitioner is a Micro and Small Enterprise, and the failure to release the admitted dues violated the statutory mandate under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which requires payments to MSMEs to be made within 45 days, failing which statutory interest becomes payable. While disposing of the writ petition earlier, the High Court directed the respondent authorities to release the balance amount along with applicable statutory interest. However, alleging that the authorities failed to comply with the directions within the stipulated period, the petitioner moved the Court by filing a contempt case for wilful disobedience of the order. During the hearing of the contempt case, the Court was informed that the amount directed to be paid had still not been released despite the lapse of the time granted earlier. Taking note of the submissions, Justice Bheemapaka granted the respondents a last opportunity to comply with the Court’s order, cautioning that failure to do so would invite further action in the contempt proceedings.



Source link