Salar Jung Museum Board Member’s Appointment Challenged

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday took on file a writ appeal with regard to the appointment of Ahtheram Ali Khan as a member of the Salar Jung Museum Board. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Syed Abdul Wahab. Earlier a writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the action of the Union of India in appointing Ahtheram Ali Khan as a member of the SJM board. It was the case of the appellant that he should be appointed as the member and the said appointment was arbitrary and illegal. Ahtheram Ali Khan alleged that the appellant was not a member of the Salar Jung family. It was contended by him that the appellant was the son of Moulvi Syed Abdullah, brother-in-law of Nawab Salar Jung-II. It was contended that Nawab Salar Jung-II married Zainab Begum, sister of Moulvi Syed Abdullah, but by no stretch of imagination could be termed or classified as a member of the Salar Jung family, he argued. The single judge after perusing the material rejected the claim of the appellant and said, “A bare perusal of Section 5(1)(f) of Salar Jung Museum Act, 1961 clearly indicates that the family member to be selected by the Central government should be a member of the family of Nawab Salar Jung-III. It is the specific case of the respondent that the family of the Nawab Salar Jung-III would be the descendants of the Nawab Salar Jung-I and/or their spouses since Nawab Salar Jung-III died unmarried without any issues and that the petitioner does not belong to the Salar Jung family since the petitioner’s father was the brother-in-law of Nawab Salar Jung-II.” The single judge, however, also made it clear that dismissal of the writ petition did not preclude the petitioner from instituting a suit for the declaration of legal heirs of late Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur in the context of appointment as a member of the board. If any such suit is filed it shall be the obligation of the petitioner to implead all the legal heirs. The appellant aggrieved by this order of single judge preferred writ appeal. Senior counsel Vedula Srinivas, appearing for the appellant, argued that succession was decided by a civil court decree passed in October 2004, which was affirmed in appeal. He contended that the said aspect was not appreciated by the single judge. After hearing the parties, the bench ordered notices to the respondents and made it clear that it will be open for Union of India to make nomination to the museum’s board, if so advised by taking into account the impact and effect of the succession decree as confirmed by the appellate court.

Notices in PIL alleging non-implementation of PM Poshan and ICDS schemes

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered notices in a PIL alleging non-implementation of midday meals (PM Poshan) in government schools till Class 8 and non-implementation of Integrated Child Development Service Scheme (ICDS) for all eligible women and children. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a PIL filed by K. Akhil Sri Guru Teja, social worker. The petitioner challenged the inaction of the government pertaining to a GO and a memo issued on August 31, 2023, with regard to recognising and controlling private unaided schools. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the government had failed in implementing Rule 20 of the Rules 1994, which prescribed submission of an annual administration report by the educational agency for every financial year by September 30 at the latest and such report shall be supported by the audited statement of accounts of the school duly audited by a chartered accountant. The petitioner inter alia sought a direction to test the quality of nutritional standards as per Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013 of food served in midday meals (PM Poshan) and ICDS scheme as per Mid-Day Meal Rules, 2015. The panel considering the same ordered notices to the respondents and posted the matter for further adjudication.

Case against govt interference in railway’s internal administration

Justice C.V Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by South Central Railway OBC Employees Association challenging the alleged act of the Central and state railway department in trying to interfere with its internal administration. The petitioner alleged discrimination by the respondents on the ground that similar facilities to the petitioner association were not extended, which are otherwise accorded to the All India SC/ST Railway Employees Association. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondents to verify the contentions raised by the petitioner association and posted the matter for further hearing.

GHMC accused of inaction

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the inaction of the GHMC and its officers, in taking any action against Aurobindo Pharma Limited and others for alleged illegal construction. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by C. Jeevan Kumar, who complained of inaction on the part of respondent authorities despite repeated complaints of illegal constructions over notified government land in Survey No. 44 of Maqta Mahboobpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy district. The petitioner alleged that Aurobindo Pharma, along with Gundala Raghavendra Rao and Gundala Sarwottam Rao, had constructed a boundary wall and temporary sheds on the land to facilitate the company’s extension of its unit in contravention of law. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the GHMC to file its response and posted the matter for further adjudication.

83-year-old woman seeks pro rata pension

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea of an 83-year-old woman seeking a pro-rata pension. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by A. Chandramma, challenging GOs dated April 19, 2016, and December 18, 2018, and consequential proceedings initiated by the superintending engineer in the irrigation and CAD department. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authority rejected her claim for sanction of pro-rata pension erroneously by bringing it under the purview of a GO dated October 5, 1999, although it was covered under the GO dated November 29, 1967. The petitioner alleged that the action of the respondent authorities was erroneous as her retrenched deceased spouse was absorbed into the RTC within the stipulated cut-off date prescribed under the GO of 1967. The petitioner complained that the respondent authorities misinterpreted the state-revised pension rules and had thrice deliberately rejected her application for pension. The petitioner sought pro-rata pension and revision of pension together with interest on belated payments with all consequential benefits. After hearing the respondent authorities, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.