THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.18443 OF 2015
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/1547/2014 dt.28.04.2015 as being contrary to G.O.Ms.No.484, dt.28.07.2012 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and made applicable and adapted by the 1st respondent and also contrary to the statutory Circular instructions in Rc.No.C2/4754/2011, dt.30.07.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, A.P., applicable to the 3rd respondent institution, as bad, illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till he attains the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits under the 3rd respondent temple and to direct the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner till 65 years of age and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
W.P.No.18443 of 2015 2
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sanskrit Pandit in the Sanskrit Veda Pathasala belonging to the 3rd respondent Devasthanam after being sponsored by the District Employment Officer, Khammam in Rc.No.A3/2332/82 dt.30.10.1982. He is well versed in Sanskrit language and also Agama Sastrams, Vaastu, Vedic Sastram related to performance of pooja vidhanam. Therefore, the petitioner's services were utilised not only for teaching Sanskrit language for examinations conducted by the Sanskrit Bhasha Prachara Sabha but he was also imparting Sastras to Archakas and Veda Pandits of the 3rd respondent temple. The Archakas in the 3rd respondent temple were also trained by the petitioner in Pancharaathraagamam, i.e., a pooja vidhanam and the petitioner also trained the Archakas in passing the examinations conducted by the Endowments Department for Archaka Pravesha, Vara, Pravara degrees etc. On important occasions like Brahmotsavams and Pavitrotsavams, the petitioner conducted Vedaparayanam, Vishnu Purana Parayanam, etc., and performed Asthakshari Maha Mantra Japams, Sri Lakshmi Maha Mantra, Japams, etc. W.P.No.18443 of 2015 3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and from the date of appointment, he made sizeable contribution for conducting and participating in all the Utsavams and for propagating of Sanskrit language by rendering services in the 3rd respondent temple. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularised vide proceedings dt.05.04.2007 and annual increments were sanctioned and special promotional post scales were also granted on completion of 8 and 16 years of service respectively and the revision pay scales of 1993, 1999 and 2005 were also applied. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed under the cadre strength of 'Religious Staff' and therefore, he comes under the meaning of 'Ultharai Servant' (Religious Staff). It is submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.888, dt.08.12.2000 and Rule 3(c) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 issued under the said G.O., 'Ultharai Servant' means "a servant whose duties relate mainly to the performance or rendering assistance in the performance of pooja, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of Mantras, Vedas, Prabandhas, Thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of W.P.No.18443 of 2015 4 duties connected with such performances or citations." Thus, according to the petitioner, he comes under the category of 'Ultharai Servant' and is eligible for all the service benefits under the said category including the age of retirement.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.484 Revenue (Endowment-I) Department, dt.28.07.2012 amending Rule 9 of G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000, according to which, the age of superannuation of Ultharai Servants shall be 65 years, but if he is found physically unfit, he may be retired from service before attaining that age. He submits that in view thereof, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 65.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after bifurcation of the State into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the 1st respondent had issued a Notification in G.O.Ms.No.37, dt.01.11.2014 adapting the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 with certain modifications. However, the age of superannuation for Ultharai Servants has not been changed.
W.P.No.18443 of 2015 5
6. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent issued retirement notice dt.22.12.2014 in Rc.No.A1/1547/ 2014 to the petitioner intimating that as his date of birth is registered as 09.06.1957 in their records, he would be attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 09.06.2015 and as such, he would retire from service on 30.06.2015. It is stated that in response to the said notice, the petitioner gave a representation dt. 31.01.2015 duly bringing to the notice of the 3rd respondent that he is entitled to be continued up to the age of 65 years as per G.O.Ms.No.484 dt.28.07.2012. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent, therefore, issued another notice on 08.02.2015 calling upon the petitioner to give the details of the nature of duties performed by him. In reply to the same, on 13.02.2015, the petitioner made a detailed representation with regard to the nature of his duties and also that the post of Sanskrit Pandit is shown under the category of 'Religious Staff' of the 3rd respondent temple and as per rules, he is entitled to be continued in service till he attains the age of 65 years. However, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order in Rc.No.A1/1547/2014 dt.28.04.2015 calling upon the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed another representation dt.05.05.2015.
W.P.No.18443 of 2015 6 However, the respondents did not consider the same and sought to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years. In view thereof, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition and relied upon the interim order of this Court in an identical case in W.P.M.P.No.29235 of 2012 in W.P.No.22873 of 2012 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner therein till he attains the age of 65 years in the light of G.O.Ms.No.484 dt.28.07.2012.
7. This Court granted interim direction to the respondents vide orders dt.25.06.2015 in W.P.M.P.No.23863 of 2015 to continue the petitioner till he attains the age of 65 years. The respondents however filed stay vacate petition in W.V.M.P.No.2694 of 2014 in W.P.M.P.No.23863 of 2015 in W.P.No.18443 of 2015 and vide orders dt.02.01.2017, the interim orders were vacated and it was clarified that the release of retirement benefits of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Krishna Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the religious institutions, there are two cadres of staff. One is engineering section and another is religious section. He submitted that the post of Sanskrit Pandit is mentioned W.P.No.18443 of 2015 7 under the Religious Section and the petitioner's name is also mentioned thereunder in the records of the 3rd respondent temple. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dt.07.12.1995 with regard to the 3rd respondent temple giving the details of the cadre strength fixed for the temple and under the cadre of Religious Staff, Sanskrit Teacher and the scale attached to it are mentioned. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Circular No.13/77 dt.28.07.1970, wherein imparting of Sanskrit for practising the religious way of life and also performing poojas in the temple was considered and a decision was taken to set up Sanskrit Pathasalas in respect of the temples established under Section 6 (a) and (b) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and accordingly, a Sanskrit School was established in the 3rd respondent temple. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.484 dt.28.07.2012, wherein it is provided for amendment of Rule 9 of the Rules notified under G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000 and the age of superannuation of 'Ultharai Servants' was enhanced to 65 years from 58 years. In view thereof, the Commissioner of Endowments vide Circular dt.30.07.2012, has instructed the Executive Officers of the temples not W.P.No.18443 of 2015 8 to retire the Religious Staff who attain the age of 58 years by 31.07.2012 in view of the said Notification. He submitted that in view of the said Notification, the Archakas in other temples have been retained up to 65 years, but in the case of the petitioner, he was forced to retire at the age of 58 years. He submitted that though G.O.Ms.No.484 was a preliminary Circular, the Government of Telangana has subsequently issued final Notification in G.O.Ms.No.202, dt.15.09.2018 confirming that the age of superannuation of Ultharai Servants shall be 65 years unless a particular Ultharai Servant is found physically unfit. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his above contentions.
(1) Pidikiti Madhava Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1. (2) State of UP and others Vs. Mahesh Narain etc.2 (3) Vimal Kumari Vs. State of Haryana3.
(4) Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan4.
(5) Abraham Jacob Vs. Union of India5.
(6) Chavali Shivaji Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh6. 1 1967(2) AnWR 366 2 2013 CJ(SC) 173 3 1998 CJ(SC) 1148 4 1966 CJ(SC) 237 : AIR 1967 SC 1910 5 1998 CJ(SC) 14 W.P.No.18443 of 2015 9 (7) Atlas Cycle Industries Limited Vs. State of Haryana7.
9. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri Kotha Jagan Mohan Reddy, submitted that since the petitioner has retired from service after vacation of the interim order and also received retirement benefits, this Writ Petition has become infructuous and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed as such. In support of his contention that the petitioner has retired and all benefits were paid to him, he has furnished a copy of the service book of the petitioner and also xerox copies of the cheques issued to the petitioner for settlement of his terminal benefits. On merits, he submitted that the petitioner is a Sanskrit Teacher and therefore, he is not a 'Ultharai Servant' and as per the definition of "Ultharai Servant" given in G.O.Ms.No.888, dt.08.12.2000, only a person who is performing duties to the deity can be considered as Ultharai Servant and since the petitioner was a teacher, he cannot be considered as Ultharai Servant and therefore, he was rightly retired at the age of 58 years.
6 1986 CJ(AP) 54 : AIR 1988 AP 124 7 1978 CJ(SC) 11 : AIR 1979 SC 1149 W.P.No.18443 of 2015 10
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner was appointed by the Endowments Department as Sanskrit Teacher temporarily in the establishment of the 3rd respondent temple in the time scale of 575-20-775-25-950 with usual allowances as admissible in the Devasthanam. As per the cadre strength of the temple as on 13.12.2014, the petitioner has been shown as Sanskrit Pandit and has also been shown under Religious Section along with Archakas, such as Sthanacharya, Pradhana Archaka, Upa Pradhana Archaka, Mukya Archaka, Archaka, Paricharaka, Purohit, Veda Pandit and Sanskrit Pandit. Even Cooks, Sannayi, Dolu, Mrudangam are all shown as staff under Religious Section. The 'Religious Section' is the English word for 'Ultharai Servants' and therefore, the petitioner being placed under the Section of Religious Staff cannot be deemed to be other than Religious Staff for retirement purpose. G.O.Ms.No.484 dt.28.07.2012 clearly mentions that Ultharai Servant shall retire at the age of 65 years unless he is found physically unfit. The final Notification mentions similarly except for stating that the employee shall be declared as physically unfit only after medical examination.
W.P.No.18443 of 2015 11
11. In the case before this Court, the only ground taken by the respondents is that the petitioner is not 'Ultharai Servant'. However, on going through the nature of duties performed by the petitioner and in view of placing the post of Sanskrit Pandit under Religious Section, the respondents have treated him as Religious Staff all along and cannot now take a stand that he is not Religious Staff only for the retirement purposes and retire him at the age of 58 years. However, as the petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years on 09.06.2015 and was continued thereafter till 02.01.2017, i.e., till the order of vacating the stay is passed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have retired on 02.01.2017. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner to have been in service till he attained the age of 65 years and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner, including the salary and retirement benefits within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
W.P.No.18443 of 2015 12
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 06.09.2022 Svv