SC pulls up TGSRTC officials over misleading affidavit

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 18, came down heavily on Telangana Government State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) officials for failing to mention a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) in their affidavit concerning the regularisation of 18 employees who were appointed on a contract basis.

SC unhappy with the affidavit

A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vinay Bishnoi expressed strong displeasure against the TGSRTC Managing Director and the corporation’s legal officer who had prepared the affidavit.

The court questioned why the affidavit failed to inform the Supreme Court about the SLP that is currently pending in a related matter.

Earlier, on November 10, Justice Maheshwari had directed both officials to appear before the court in person, and they complied with the order. During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench observed that the affidavit incorrectly stated that the corporation had already regularised the employees’ services and would calculate and pay any pending dues “in accordance with the directions of the High Court.”

Judge questions inconsistencies

Justice Maheshwari sharply questioned this approach, remarking that the High Court’s order had been challenged before the Supreme Court, and hence, the issue was still under consideration.

“When the matter is pending before this Court, how can you say payments will be made as per the High Court’s directions? You should have stated that payments, if any, will be made in accordance with the final order of this Court. Are TGSRTC officials trying to show their smartness here, in the Supreme Court?” he asked pointedly.

The bench further questioned whether senior officers holding “responsible positions were unable to properly understand the court’s orders.”

TGSRTC’s counsel issues apology

Senior advocate Giri, appearing for the corporation, apologised to the bench, submitting that the omission was not intentional and that any error was his responsibility.

Responding to this, Justice Maheshwari observed that the officials who appeared in person before the court were not entitled to claim travel or daily allowances (TA/DA) for attending the hearing.

He directed that they bear the travel expenses from their own pockets and “learn a lesson from this mistake.” Advocate Giri assured the bench that the officials would strictly abide by the court’s directions going forward.​