Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court ruled that an employee cannot be deprived of his rightful seniority after applying for Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) leave for private employment, as the board’s leave regulations explicitly state that sanctioned extraordinary leave (EOL) should not be considered a break in service. Justice Nagesh Bheempaka disposed of a writ plea in favour of a former AP Power Generation Corporation (APGenco) employee in a long-standing dispute over seniority and promotion. The writ plea, filed by K. Srinivas Reddy, a divisional engineer, challenged the decision of TSGenco, which denied him promotion on the grounds that his period of extraordinary leave should not be counted as qualifying service. The petitioner availed of EOL from August 2001 to May 2006 for private employment abroad. Upon his return, he resumed his duties but later found that his period of leave was considered as a break in service. As a result, he lost seniority and was denied promotion, while his juniors advanced in rank. The petitioner contended that his EOL was sanctioned as per APSEB leave regulations, which clearly state that such leave does not constitute a break in service. He argued that his fundamental rights to fair service conditions were violated due to the arbitrary interpretation of the rules by TSGenco. During the hearings, counsel for the petitioner, emphasised that there were clear precedents where EOL was treated as part of the qualifying service. The respondents, however, argued that EOL for private employment should not be counted towards seniority, as it was a voluntary absence from duty. They maintained that promotions are based on continuous service and that absence of a petitioner created a valid ground for denying him seniority benefits. The judge held that the petitioner was unfairly deprived of his rightful seniority and ordered TSGenco to restore his seniority with retrospective effect.
Compensation claim: Govt told to clarify
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the state and revenue authorities to respond to a writ petition challenging the eviction of residents from the Dacharam and Darugula villages without compensation. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by agriculturist D. Amarender Reddy and others, who argued that the government was acting on an obsolete 1962 land acquisition notification. The petitioners contended that these proceedings had long lapsed and could not be enforced under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act 2013. The villagers urged the court to prevent their eviction without due process and sought fresh proceedings under the modern legal framework if the government intended to acquire the land. The judge directed the government to file a counter-affidavit addressing the concerns.
Plea to constitute child welfare panel
The Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea regarding the delay in finalising the selection list for the vacant positions of chairperson and members of the child welfare committee (CWC) in the Jayashankar-Bhupalapally district. Justice Pulla Karthik was dealing with a writ plea filed by social activist Nanneboyina Ravi, who contended that despite the issuance of a notification in June 2021, the selection process for CWC appointments remained incomplete. The petitioner argued that this delay was arbitrary and discriminatory, impacting the welfare of children in the district. After hearing the arguments, the judge directed the government to file a counter affidavit addressing the concerns raised.
