Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court directed the Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TS Genco) to appoint a candidate to the post of assistant engineer (mechanical) under the physically handicapped (orthopedically handicapped) category with all consequential benefits after she was denied appointment based on a government order governing the reservation and interchange of physically handicapped categories in government employment. The judge disposed of a writ plea filed by Dharavath Neelima, an engineering graduate with an orthopedic disability, who challenged the selection process after being denied appointment despite securing higher marks than a candidate who was selected under the physically handicapped category. The grievance arose from a recruitment notification issued by TS Genco in September 2015, which reserved 3 per cent of posts for physically handicapped candidates. The petitioner applied under the PH (OH) category for a post in Zone-I and secured 41 marks in the merit list. She was not called for certificate verification, while a candidate with 32 marks was selected under the hearing-impaired category. The petitioner argued that the appointment process was arbitrary and violated established rules, as all previous recruitments for similar posts reserved the PH quota for orthopedic disabilities due to the hazardous nature of the job. The respondent authorities defended its selection process, citing a GO dated May 26, 2011, which governs the reservation and interchange of physically handicapped categories in government employment. According to the roster system, the available PH vacancies in the mechanical engineering branch were assigned to different disability categories. The respondents claimed that the petitioner could only be considered for the OH category, which had already been filled by a candidate with 61 marks. The judge, after reviewing the records, found that the notification did not explicitly mention the applicability of the GO. Moreover, the judge observed that Genco historically reserved PH vacancies for orthopedic disabilities due to the technical and hazardous nature of the job. The judge also noted that TS Genco adopted all circulars and decisions of its predecessor, AP Genco, under the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 which previously restricted PH recruitment to orthopaedically challenged candidates. Accordingly, the judge disposed of the writ plea.
Cyber fraud accused gets bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of Telangana High Court granted bail to a private service employee accused in a cyber-crime case. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by C. Vijay Sagar. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was involved in an organised cyber fraud where victims were deceived with fake task-based job offers through a website, promising high returns using forged electronic documents. The de facto complainant allegedly lost approximately Rs 2 lakh in the scheme. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and there were no direct allegations against him. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a major part of the investigation was completed except for the filing of the chargesheet. Counsel for the petitioner also highlighted that the petitioner had been in custody since January 2025, and two other accused facing similar allegations were granted bail. The petitioner assured cooperation with the investigation and sought relief on similar grounds. The judge observed that the petitioner’s bank account was been frozen, and he had been in custody for over two months. Considering that other co-accused were already granted bail, the judge found it appropriate to extend the same relief to the petitioner and enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.
Seeds corp to pay interest to pensioner
Justice P. Sree Sudha of Telangana High Court directed the AP Seeds Development Corporation Ltd (APSSDC) to pay interest to a retired employee for delayed disbursement of a terminal benefits. The judge dealt with a writ petition filed by G.S. Prasada Rao, manager (production), who retired in 2004. It was the case of the petitioner that his gratuity and leave encashment dues, amounting to approximately Rs 4.35 lakh, were paid belatedly in 2008. The petitioner sought interest at 9 per cent per annum for the delay, contending that despite the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him being dropped in 2008, his rightful retirement benefits were withheld for several years. The petitioner argued that the delay caused him financial hardship and was in violation of established service rules. The respondent corporation defended its stance, citing that the delay was due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against multiple employees and that the amounts were disbursed after the clearance of all procedural formalities. However, the judge found this explanation unsatisfactory, observing that the petitioner could not be penalized for administrative lapses beyond his control. The judge ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed the respondent corporation to pay interest at 9 per cent per annum on the delayed amount for the period from 2004 to 2008. The judge further ordered that if the payment was not made by April 21, an additional interest of 7.5 per cent per annum would be levied until full and final settlement of the dues.
