Retired employees challenge mandatory 1.5% health scheme deduction

Hyderabad: A group of retired government employees from Hanumakonda has approached the Telangana High Court to suspend a recent GO that makes a 1.5% contribution to the employees health scheme compulsory for pensioners.

T Seetaram and ten other retired workers filed the writ, arguing that the deduction places an unfair financial strain on those who rely solely on their monthly pension to make ends meet. The petitioners want the court to put the controversial order on hold and refund the money already deducted from their pensions since June 2026.

The challenge focuses on GO 79, issued by the Finance department on June 29. Under this all State government employees and pensioners must contribute 1.5% of their basic pay or basic pension to the Employee Health Care Trust. The petitioners argue this rate is much too high and violates the Telangana Integrated Medical Attendance Rules, 1972. They claim the State failed to follow the fairer contribution models used by the Central government health scheme.

This case will be heard alongside an existing writ filed earlier this year by Md Nizamuddin, a lab technician from Adilabad. That petition specifically asks the court to strike down the clauses in both GO 186 and the new GO. Both related cases are pending before the Chief Justice bench for adjudication.

HC Segregates municipal merger pleas from amendment act challenge

The HC division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin on Monday took up a batch of writs challenging the 2026 amendment to the Telangana Municipal Act, 2019. The amendment concerns the merger of municipalities with the GHMC.

At the outset, counsel for the petitioners sought to separate two of the matters, from the rest of the batch. He submitted these two petitions stood on a different footing, as a counter-affidavit had also been filed by the Union of India. He asked for time to examine the counter.

Explaining the distinction, counsel said the two petitions challenged the bifurcation of the unified GHMC into three separate corporations after the earlier merger of municipalities. He argued that this bifurcation violated census rules, since the census exercise was currently underway. He noted that pleadings in these two matters were complete, with counters, replies and written submissions already on record.

Both the Advocate-General and the petitioners’ counsel agreed that these two writs were distinct from the rest of the batch, which challenges the 2026 Amendment Act itself. The bench accepted this position and directed that the two petitions be segregated and listed separately in September, to allow the Advocate-General time to respond to the Union of India’s affidavit. For the remaining matters in the batch, the Advocate-General sought an adjournment of two weeks. The petitioners counsel did not object, stating that it was customary not to oppose such requests from the A-G. The bench accordingly adjourned the rest of the matters to August 27.

Court to hear petition filed by Rega Kanth Rao seeking to quash criminal case

The HC will hear a petition filed by former BRS legislator Rega Kantha Rao on August 5 requesting the court to quash a criminal case registered against him by the Panjagutta police. Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao will hear the case, which is listed as criminal petition 12231 of 2026.

The case stems from a complaint filed on July 26 by media professional Ramagiri Navya. She alleged that the former Pinapaka legislator sexually assaulted her multiple times starting in 2022, when she was 22 years old.

According to her complaint, the abuse happened under the promise of a job in a planned YouTube channel. She stated that he took Rs.5 lakh from her under the guise of investing it in real estate with the promise of high returns.

In his petition Rao denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the FIR. He argued that the claims involve events from years ago and that he has no connection to them. Regarding the money, he stated that he never took Rs.5 lakh from her for real estate; the amount was actually returned to her by a third party he does not know. He claimed that the complainant has a habit of filing such cases, pointing to her earlier complaint against a media channel chairperson. Rao maintains that he has been falsely implicated and wants the police case dropped.