
MP Claims 190 Andhra Cops Without Postings Or Pay For A Year, State Denies
The state government has, however, said the officers have been drawing salaries.
Maddila Gurumoorthy, the YSR Congress Party from Tirupati, said the officers, including 27 additional superintendents of police, 42 deputy superintendents of police and over 100 inspectors, have been placed in Vacancy Reserve (VR) or "compulsory wait" without any departmental inquiries, legal action, or explanation. Despite reporting to the Director General of Police's office daily, they have not been assigned duties, posted officially, or paid salaries for over a year, he wrote in the letter.
"This amounts to clear violations of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India," the MP wrote, citing psychological, financial, and professional trauma caused to the officers and their families. "This is not just maladministration. It is a human rights issue," he added.
Mr Gurumoorthy had earlier raised the issue in Parliament during Zero Hour on March 12, and a Starred Question in the State Legislative Council on March 13. The state government acknowledged that 199 officers had been kept in reserve since June 2024 but denied that they had not been given salaries.
The Andhra Pradesh Government stated that the placement of officers in "waiting" is an administrative matter and not punitive. It clarified that such postings are temporary and necessitated due to ongoing departmental reorganisations, pending disciplinary issues, or medical grounds. The government asserted that all officers continue to draw their salaries and are required to report daily to the DGP's office in Mangalagiri as per official instructions. It also denied any violation of service norms or Supreme Court guidelines.
MP's Allegations
In his letter, Mr Gurumoorthy expressed shock that officers without postings in the IAS and Revenue Services are still receiving their salaries while their counterparts in the police force are denied basic financial support, housing allowances, and even retirement benefits in some cases.
In what he described as a "paradoxical and hypocritical move," Mr Gurumoorthy pointed out that the Andhra Pradesh Government has been seeking All India Services officers from other states citing a shortage, even while senior trained officers remain idle and unpaid.
"These officers are being made to travel in public transport in uniform for unofficial duties, including VIP bandobast and religious gatherings, without pay, allowances, or even basic dignity," he wrote.
Calling it a violation of Supreme Court guidelines issued in Prakash Singh vs Union of India (2006), which protect police officers from arbitrary treatment and emphasise the need for insulation from political interference, Mr Gurumoorthy demanded immediate corrective action.
He urged the Centre and judiciary to direct the Andhra Pradesh government to restore postings to all affected officers, release all pending salaries and allowances, resume their pension contributions and provide compensation for "unlawful deprivation".
"This is not merely an administrative issue," Mr Gurumoorthy said. "It is a matter of justice, constitutional morality, and institutional integrity."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy
NEW DELHI: Opposing the government's firm stand not to lower the age of consent below 18 years, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising told Supreme Court that it criminalised "consensual sexual activity between children in the age group of 16-18 years, and violated their right to autonomy". Presenting a counter to Centre's stand in the case, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and "neither any rational reason was given justifying the increase to 18 years nor was there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase". "Until enactment of Pocso Act , there was no law dealing with sexual offences against children. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Section 63, has kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that amended IPC to increase the age of consent to 18 years," she said. Jaising said increase in age of consent violated right of autonomy of children in 16-18 age group, who could give mature consent to sexual activity given the fact that they had attained puberty and, consequentially, sexual awareness. However, she put in an important caveat. "This brief does not suggest that anyone above the age of 18 who has sex with another below the age of 18 be decriminalised," she said. "Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and development of sexual relationships of choice," Jaising said, adding, "Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law. " Jaising requested SC to "declare that any consensual sexual activity between children of the ages of 16-18 constitutes an exception to penal provisions of the statute as being 'close in age', non-abusive and non-exploitative". Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals, she said, adding, "Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious relationships or inter-caste relationships. "Consensual sexual relations between adolescents in the 16-18 age bracket need not necessarily result in marriage, but on the contrary, criminalising such sexual behaviour will result in children eloping and getting married to avoid being prosecuted by Pocso." She suggested to the court that the law as it stands requires to be read down to include a 'close in age' exception when the sexual activity is consensual.


Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC orders status quo on process of govt schools' pairing in Sitapur till Aug 21
Lucknow: A Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Thursday directed the UP govt to maintain the status quo on the process of pairing of primary schools in Sitapur district till Aug 21. The court passed the interim order after observing some discrepancies in pairing of the schools in the district. The bench, however, clarified that its interim order neither questions the merit of the schools pairing policy nor its implementation. A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the interim order on two special appeals filed separately by Master Nitish Kumar and Master Dharm Veer through their guardians. The bench observed: "Till the next date, only in respect of district Sitapur, on account of the fact that certain glaring discrepancies have been noticed by the court which are sought to be explained by the respondents, status quo as it exists today, qua the implementation of the exercise undertaken by the respondents for pairing of schools shall be maintained. " The special appeals were filed against the single judge bench's order of July 7, which had dismissed the writ petitions against the state govt order (dated June 16, 2025) on pairing or merger of primary schools which had poor strength of students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo The appellants pleaded that paired schools violate the norm of having a school in the neighborhood under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and in violation of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. In the course of hearing, the bench found that the single judge had relied on some documents produced by the state govt. As the said documents were not part of record, the state counsel filed them on affidavit. Taking them on record, the bench asked the appellants' counsel to respond to them as well by next hearing.


Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court stays use of Bombay HC's 7/11 blast verdict as precedent, but won't halt release of acquitted accused
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court verdict in the Mumbai train blasts case of July 11, 2006 to the limited extent that it will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. A division bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, however, refused to stay the release of the 11 accused who were acquitted by the high court. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Others Operations Management healthcare PGDM Technology MBA Data Analytics Healthcare CXO Digital Marketing Degree Design Thinking Public Policy others Data Science Management Product Management Project Management MCA Leadership Cybersecurity Artificial Intelligence Data Science Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details The bench ordered, "all respondents (accused) released and thus no question to bring them back to prison. However, on the question of law we will say that impugned judgment is not treated as precedent in any other cases. Therefore, to that extent let there be stay on the impugned judgment". Appearing on behalf of Maharashtra government , solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that the high court ruling could adversely affect other trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act ( MCOCA ). Hence, Mehta sought an urgent stay on the verdict though he did not press for a stay on the release of the acquitted persons. Mehta said as far as stay is concerned, he is "not on liberty" of the accused. Live Events Referring to the high court ruling, Mehta added "there are some findings which will affect all our MCOCA trials. The judgment can be stayed and release be not hampered". The court agreed and granted limited stay on the judgment as urged by Mehta. The bench issued notice to the respondents, directing them to file their responses to the appeal filed by Maharashtra government challenging the high court verdict. In its appeal, the Maharashtra government has challenged the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit all the 12 accused in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, nearly a decade after a special court awarded death penalty to five accused and life sentences to the remaining. The case relates to the serial bomb blasts that occurred on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 187 people and injuring more than 800 people. A special court had in 2015 sentenced five of the accused to death and seven to life imprisonment. One of the convicts died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while lodged in Nagpur jail. The Bombay High Court on Monday acquitted all the accused observing that "the prosecution utterly failed in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubts". Lambasting the prosecution, the high court ruled that the prosecution's case gave the public a "misleading sense of resolution" while "the true threat remains at large".