Linga Ranjith Kumar of Nizamabad district moved the court challenging rejection of his application for employment under a scheme introduced in Aug. 1996 to provide a job to a family member of any person killed in extremist violence or in police firing. HC rejected his application except for recording that the date of death of his father was after Feb. 26, 1996.
. The judge directed the authorities to cogitate the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders nimbly. Hearing this case, govt pleader submitted that the district collector addressed a letter stating that the govt 5 lakhs as ex-gratia to the petitioner instead of a job.
The judge spiked out that the govt and the authorities have no right to veto the orders passed by the court. “When an order has been passed by this Court, it is the obligated duty of the litigants to implement the orders of the Court.
The judge made it clear that only a division bench of the court or the Apex court can decide that and can’t reopen that case.
HC: Explain selection of inheritor:
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad HC directed the AP government to explain how the ‘Social workers’ are being identified by the local minister to avail SC Action Plan for 2014-15 .
The petition was filed by T. Tulasamma and others of Kadapa district vindicate action of the authorities in handy the persons who are defeated in the elections in mandal and municipal level screening cum selection committee to select eligible inheritor under the scheme.
No public representative of any political party should intervene in selection of beneficiaries scheme said the bench. The petitioners alleged that under the facade of social worker persons from ruling party who lost in the elections are being given the main role in the screening committees.