Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court overruled an office objection in a contempt case against Dr Jithender, Director General of Police, and others. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by T.S.A. Prasad, inspector, police control room, alleging willful and wanton disobedience of the orders of the court. Earlier, a writ petition was filed challenging the inaction of the authorities in considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of deputy superintendent of police (civil). The court on August 28, 2023, directed the authorities to consider the claim within two weeks. The petitioner said that in December 2023, the principal secretary, home, directed the DGP to consider his claim of promotion on an ad hoc basis pending the disposal of any matter in the court or before any authority. It was alleged that DGP had not initiated action to date. Counsel for the petitioner, Deepak Misra, argued that even after addressing representations to the DGP, no consequential order was passed. It was pointed out that the petitioner could not get a promotion, which his colleagues got. The office raised an objection on the maintainability of the contempt petition filed beyond the limitation period of one year. Counsel argued that the cause of action was of a continuing nature and it could not be said that there was a delay in pursuing the remedies, as numerous representations were made on various dates and remained in vain. The judge, considering the same, overruled the objections and directed the numbering of the contempt case. 2. Defacing charge against worker standsJustice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court partly allowed a criminal petition filed by a political party worker accused of violating election norms by pasting posters on public property. While the judge dismissed the charge of disobeying official orders, he allowed the trial to proceed for defacing public spaces without authorisation. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Pagadala Kaliprasad, who was one of several individuals booked after posters of the BRS, Congress, and the BJP were found pasted on electricity poles in Pocharam during the 2023 election campaign. The complaint originated from a divisional panchayat officer responsible for monitoring adherence to the model code of conduct. The petitioner argued that no official order was issued by any competent authority, and therefore, he could not be accused of violating such an order. The petitioner claimed that the posters did not contain any obscene or objectionable material and that the complaint was procedurally flawed. The judge agreed that the allegation of disobeying a public servant’s order could not stand, as the complaint failed to follow the mandatory legal procedure requiring a formal report by the officer who issued the order. The judge relied on earlier rulings clarifying that such offences must begin with a valid complaint from the authority concerned. The judge declined to quash the second charge, which accused the petitioner of defacing public property by pasting posters without prior approval. The judge noted that witnesses, including a police constable and a videographer, supported the allegation that posters were affixed to electric poles without permission from the electricity department. 3. Mother guilty of custody contempt: HCA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao held a woman, an advocate, guilty of contempt for violating a custody order and directed the immediate return of her three minor children to their father. The panel was hearing a contempt case filed by the father alleging that his estranged wife had abducted their children during a court-sanctioned visitation period. The March 2025 custody arrangement permitted the mother, a Bhopal-based advocate, weekend visitations in Hyderabad but explicitly required her to return the children each time. It was alleged that on June 21, the contemnor took the children from their Hyderabad residence and boarded a flight to Bhopal. He contended that when frantic attempts to contact her failed, the petitioner lodged a police complaint at the Jubilee Hills police station late that night. Sharad Sanghi, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the conduct of the mother was a blatant breach of the directives of the court and sought immediate remedial action. The panel noted that despite being granted visitation rights while the father retained custody, the mother took the children to Bhopal without informing the petitioner or seeking any modification of the court order. The children have since been enrolled in a Bhopal school. The panel held that the contemnor, being a legal professional, was fully aware of the consequences of disobeying court orders. “The act of contempt is, without a doubt, willful and deliberate,” the panel said. It also observed that the contemnor had shown no remorse and had not offered an apology. The court also rejected her argument that the contempt petition was not maintainable. Quoting from multiple Supreme Court decisions, the bench emphasised the importance of purging contempt before contesting it on merits. The act of returning the children, the court said, was essential to “undo the wrong” and restore the position that existed when the earlier order was passed. The matter has been posted for the contemnor to file an affidavit of compliance. 4. Lecturers seek zonal promotion rulesJustice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea challenging the proposed promotions to the post of principal in government junior colleges without finalising and communicating the state-level integrated seniority list of junior lecturers from Multi Zone-I and II for the panel year 2024-25. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by V. Praveen Kumar and 12 junior lecturers working in government junior colleges across Khammam, Mahbubabad and Hanamkonda districts. The petitioners contended that the respondents, particularly the director of intermediate education, were effecting promotions by treating the post of principal as a state-level post under the amended rules issued in GO dated July 5, 2025, without first publishing the integrated final seniority list. They argued that until September 1, 2024, the post of principal was treated as a zonal post under the Special Rules and no promotions could be made based on the newly amended rules unless the requisite seniority list was finalised and communicated. The petitioners alleged that promotions without such communication were arbitrary, violative of the Constitution and contrary to the General Rules. The petitioners sought directions to treat the post of principal as a zonal post and effect promotions accordingly based on the erstwhile Zone-V seniority list or to defer promotions until the state-level integrated seniority list was finalised and considered. The judge posted the matter for further hearing. 5. Count temporary service for pension: HCJustice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the audit officer, directorate of state Audit, and other authorities to consider the claim of a retired Class IV employee for counting his temporary service toward pension. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by A. Yellaiah, a retired dhobi from the Government Children Home for Boys, Saidabad, who contended that he had rendered continuous temporary service from March 1984 until his retirement in December 2010. His service was not reckoned with for pensionary benefits. He contended that despite several representations and clear legal provisions under GO dated May 15, 1987, his request had not been acted upon. The petitioner relied on binding judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, which interpreted the GO to include temporary service for pension, especially in cases where there was continuous service without a break or adverse remarks. He alleged inaction on the part of the superintendent, Government Children’s Home for Boys, and other authorities, despite clarity in law. Justice Nanda observed that the authorities were obligated to consider the petitioner’s claim in terms of the applicable GO and principles of natural justice. Allowing the writ plea, the judge directed the audit officer and the director to consider the petitioner’s service from March 1984 to December 2010 for pension, pass appropriate orders in accordance with GO dated May 15, 1987, and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.
Source link
