Legal Briefs | PIL challenges honorarium to imams: Telangana HC orders notice

HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday ordered notices in a PIL challenging the payment of honorarium/assistance to imams and muezzins of around 5,000 mosques. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with the PIL filed by A. Srinivasa Reddy and another. The petitioners contended that the state by its order issued in July 2015 had decided to pay a monthly honorarium of Rs 1,000 to imams and muezzins that comes to around Rs 12 crore per year. It was the case of the petitioner that the government had in 2018 enhanced the honorarium to Rs 5,000 and in 2023 the Waqf Board sought for enhancement of beneficiaries from 9,995 to 17,999 by which the expenditure on this head would be around Rs 204 crore. The petitioner argued that the Waqf Board should be responsible for payment of salaries to imams and not the state government. It was further argued that payment of honorarium to imams by the state was not a public purpose and therefore no grant could be made under Article 228 of the Constitution as there was no basis for choosing a particular leader of a particular religious community in exclusion of others in the matter of providing financial assistance by way of honorarium. The registry raised an objection stating it was a policy decision of the government. The panel overruled the objection and directed the registry to number the PIL and directed the state to file its counter within four weeks.

HC directs regularisation of casual worker with 30 years of service

Justice P. Sree Sudha of the Telangana High Court directed regularisation of service of a retired casual labour, who worked as a sweeper in the then State Bank of Hyderabad since 1994. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by P. Umarani, challenging the bank's rejection of her regularisation on the grounds of age limit while absorbing juniors in similar positions. The petitioner contended that despite rendering continuous service for decades, her request for regularisation was denied, on the grounds of 'over age' at the time of the interview. The petitioner said that in 1999 and 2000, the bank authorities acknowledged the necessity of her services and even listed her name among candidates to be considered for absorption. In 2004, her application was rejected, while others, including juniors and workers unrelated to bank administration, were absorbed into regular service. The bank argued that there was no guarantee of regularisation and relied on judicial precedents to contend that casual employment did not create a right to be absorbed. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court ruling that emphasised fair employment practices in government institutions and criticised the prolonged misuse of temporary contracts. The judge found the rejection of the petitioner's application improper, especially when her juniors had been absorbed. The judge directed the bank to regularise her service from May 2004 until the date of her retirement and to grant her retirement benefits, accordingly, within three months.

HC takes on file a writ plea against the appointment of SVIT principal

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the recognition of the Principal of Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology (SVIT) and appointment of certain faculty members. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Venkata Narayana Educational Society (VNES), represented by its president, against the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Mahbub College Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, and others. The petitioner contended that despite several representations in 2024 and 2025, the regulatory bodies failed to take action against the appointment of Dara Eshwar as SVIT Principal, which the petitioner claimed was in violation of a joint sponsorship August 2015 agreement. The petitioner alleged that the appointment was contrary to AICTE Regulations 2019, which prescribed qualifications and service conditions for faculty in technical institutions. The petitioner sought directions to the AICTE, UGC, JNTU, and other respondents to consider its representations and take necessary action as per law. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, the judge ordered notice to the unofficial respondents and posted the matter for further adjudication.