HC warns finance secretary over edu dept staff regularisation file delays | Hyderabad News

Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over repeated return of a file concerning the regularisation of 88 employees of the education department, warning that non-compliance with its orders will be “viewed very seriously”.Hearing a contempt case filed by the employees, Justice S Chalapathi Rao questioned why the finance secretary had returned the proposal three times despite clear judicial directions. “What is the role of the finance secretary? Can he reject it?” the judge asked.The judge observed that only two possibilities existed: either the authorities did not wish to implement the court orders, or did not understand them.The judge also noted that the finance secretary’s role was limited to concurrence and endorsement, and that the file, once routed through the proper channel up to the chief minister, could not be returned in this manner.The matter has been adjourned to Oct 27 with orders to the secretaries of finance and education department to appear in person before the court. The court also made it clear that failure to comply would invite further coercive action.Special govt pleader S Rahul Reddy submitted that the finance department held jurisdiction over regularisation policy, and that directions of the high court and Supreme Court had never been rejected.The court responded that at most such a matter could be referred to the Chief Justice, and that the finance secretary could not himself reject it.It also pulled up the authorities concerned for affidavits not supported by the record, remarking that repeated statements that a scheme was “under formulation” were unacceptable after years of suffering by the employees.The bench noted that principal secretary, higher education department, Yogita Rana, who appeared before the court virtually following a Sept 23 order, claimed that the file was remanded back on objections.The court further pointed out that the finance secretary could only process the application per procedure, and that even the reasons for returning it were not disclosed.