No timeline on dues: Telangana High Court directs State to clarify fee reimbursement mechanism
The Telangana High Court has asked the State government to clarify the fee reimbursement mechanism, questioning the lack of a timeline for clearing dues to institutions. The court warned of action if counter-affidavits are not filed by June 24
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court on Monday granted a final opportunity to the State government to submit its explanation on key provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 7 dated April 29, 2026, particularly questioning the absence of a clear timeline for clearing admitted dues to educational institutions under the fee reimbursement scheme.
The court directed the State to file detailed counter-affidavits by June 24, 2026, making it clear that any further delay would compel it to take a call on the pending interim applications filed by the institutions.
The case arises from petitions filed by several engineering colleges alleging that the State has failed to release admitted dues under the fee reimbursement scheme for academic years up to 2025–26. Clause XIV of the Government Order provides that such dues would continue to be settled under the existing institution-routed mechanism, even after the shift to Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
However, the institutions argued that the clause does not prescribe any timeline, effectively allowing indefinite delays in payments while introducing DBT-based transfers to students’ Aadhaar-linked bank accounts. Taking note of the submissions, the court sought a clear explanation from the State on how and when the admitted dues would be cleared, especially with the next academic year commencing in July 2026.
During the hearing, Special Government Counsel S. Rahul Reddy sought time to obtain instructions and file counter-affidavits, particularly on Clause XIV. Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the State had not yet responded to the court’s earlier direction regarding Clause XII of the same G.O., which prohibits institutions from insisting on payment of fees at the time of admission.
Recording the submissions, the court extended the interim suspension of Clause XII, reiterating that the State must file a comprehensive response. During the hearing, a group of students, represented by their counsel, sought to implead themselves, alleging that colleges were pressuring them to pay fees and seeking interim protection.
The court, however, declined the request, observing that both the government and institutions are expected to act in the interest of students. It further noted that fee liability would arise for the upcoming academic session beginning in July and found no merit in granting interim relief at this stage.
