Are Market Agents Needed, Asks Telangana HC
Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court questioned the legality of granting and maintaining commission agent licenses and the alleged encroachments in the Gudimalkapur vegetable market.
The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Vegetable Commission Agents Welfare Association, represented by its general secretary R. Manik Prabhu, seeking directions against the agricultural marketing manager and other officials.
The association alleged that the respondent authorities permitted and granted commission agent licenses in violation of the Telangana Agricultural Produce and Livestock Market Act and GOs and allowed commercial activities in areas specially reserved for parking in Gudimalkapur market. It was claimed that commission officials unlawfully encroached on the parking area and that the association’s repeated denunciations and complaints were not taken into consideration. The association argued that such administrative inaction was arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The petitioner sought directions prohibiting the authorities from issuing new commission agency licenses unless sufficient shop space or designated commercial area is available, canceling licenses purportedly issued in parking area and removing encroachments. Defendant officials requested time to receive instructions.
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to be issued to Telangana Handloom Weavers Cooperative Limited with written plea filed by retired employees seeking service and retirement benefits.
The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by V Krishna Reddy and 57 others, retired employees of the erstwhile AP State Textile Processing Cooperative Society Limited (APROS), complaining about the inaction and denial of service by the respondent authorities and the resulting retirement benefits.
The petitioners submitted that they were appointed between 1978 and 1981 and continued in service even after the legal merger of APROS with APCO under Act 14 of 1983, which expressly protected their pay scales, tenure, conditions of service and ultimate benefits. It was alleged that these individuals were appointed pursuant to the January 1995 proceedings and were entitled to revised pay scales and variable severance pay as provided for in the original proceedings.
Deepak Misra, counsel for the petitioners, submitted that a later amendment restricting monetary benefits under the said proceedings was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in an earlier writ plea which was approved and finalized by the Division Bench in August 2023. Although the decision was implemented in favor of certain employees, the same benefits were denied to the present petitioners only on the grounds of delay.
It was submitted that the rejection of the applicants’ statements was contrary to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which ordered that their claims be considered in the light of the binding decision, and that the previous decision was of the same nature and should be applied in the same way to all employees in a similar position. It was alleged that the denial of such assistance amounted to hostile discrimination and the arbitrary use of force in violation of constitutional guarantees. After hearing the matter on the threshold, Justice Pulla Karthik ordered notice to the respondents and directed them to file their replies.
Written defense requesting formulation of job schedule and job description for ophthalmic assistants
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court granted a writ petition seeking formulation of duty schedule and job description for ophthalmic assistants.
The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Telangana Ophthalmic Assistants/Optometrists Association, seeking directions to the public health and family welfare department and other authorities to frame a duty schedule and job description for ophthalmic assistants in accordance with the Centre’s guidelines issued in 2017.
The petitioners alleged that despite clear policy guidelines issued by the Centre, the state has not notified the roles and responsibilities of ophthalmology assistants even as many other states have implemented the 2017 guidelines.
It has been argued that the lack of a defined task schedule leads to uncertainty and difficulties, especially for paramedical ophthalmology assistants working in the private sector. Petitioners alleged that due to a lack of clarity regarding their permitted functions, private ophthalmology assistants were subject to harassment and criminal investigation by enforcement authorities.
Seeking relief as a result, the association has also sought a direction from the Telangana Medical Council not to initiate punitive action against private paramedical ophthalmology assistants until a formal duty schedule and job description is framed and notified. Justice Bheemapaka directed the respondent authorities to file their replies.
