HC Verdict on April 8

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday said the orders would be issued on April 8 in a batch of writ petitions filed by former chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, former minister T. Harish Rao, retired IAS officer Shailendra Kumar Joshi and senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal challenging the report submitted by PC Ghose on alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram lift irrigation scheme (KLIS).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin passed the judgment after hearing detailed submissions from both the sides. The panel also extended the interim protection previously granted to petitioners, preventing the state government from acting on the commission’s findings until a decision is made.

Senior advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners, submitted that the issue was not with the power of the state to constitute a commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, but with the way the investigation was conducted. “We are only victims of the procedural violation that is required under the Law. Our claim is against the plaintiffs,” he said. Naidu argued that legal notices under Sections 8B and 8C were not published and the petitioners were denied access to documents and opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Naidu argued that the Ghose commission had only reached the conclusions expected by the state government. “The commission found what the state wanted to find. The state wanted to fire the gun on someone else’s shoulder and used the commission for this,” he said. The senior lawyer said the petitioners came to know about the negative findings only after the report was made public.

Dismissing the state’s allegations that project costs have ballooned, the senior advisor stated that cost escalations are common in major irrigation projects and gave examples of various projects in Telugu States. “They (the government) have created the impression that the project is a colossal failure and a waste of public money, but statistics may not lie,” he said, adding that irrigation potential in the state has increased significantly due to KLIS.

Senior advocate Naidu also cited a government order issued months after the inquiry was constituted, stating that water from the project was being used by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and for the state government’s Musi river rejuvenation project.

Lawyers representing Smitha Sabharwal and SK Joshi reiterated that officials were only called to a “meeting” and required legal notices were not filed during the investigation. They claimed the report damaged their reputation and questioned their conduct without giving them a fair opportunity for defence. “The right to reputation is also a fundamental right, but they have been deprived of legal and constitutional rights,” the lawyers told the court.

During the hearing, the panel asked questions about the format of the notice sent to the 119 witnesses the commission examined and whether the petitioners were treated differently than other witnesses.

HC Recommends Government Framework Policy on Regulation of Contractual Workers

A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparash Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin on Thursday granted interim stay till April 15 on a single judge’s order directing regularization of a part-time employee working at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) since 1988. The bench also directed the government to prepare clear guidelines for regulating the services of temporary and contract employees.

The single judge bench had given its verdict on the petition filed by registration assistant A. Narasimha. He participated as a participant on a daily basis in 1988. According to Narasimha, GO Ms. No. dated 22 April 1994 stated that the arrangement could be considered for part-time employees who have completed five years of service. In accordance with Article 212, their services had to be regulated in 1994.

The single judge had directed the university to regularize its services within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Annoyed with the decision, JNTU filed an appeal before the division bench. During the trial.

Chief Justice Singh observed that a large number of cases related to regularization of temporary and contract employees are pending before the courts and suggested that the government should take a policy decision by framing appropriate guidelines on the subject in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006)’.

The Chief Justice noted that Jharkhand had taken steps to implement the principles laid down in the ‘Umadevi’ judgment and suggested that similar measures could also be considered by the state government. The court observed that framing a clear policy would help resolve the large number of pending disputes and reduce litigation on the issue.

The division bench also observed that no comprehensive GO or legislation has been framed for legal regulation of temporary or contract employees in the state after 1993. The court requested the Attorney General to present the matter to the authorities and consider taking appropriate steps to address the matter.