Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi ... vs S.Balasubramanyam
2021 Latest Caselaw 187 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                      Writ Appeal No.16 of 2021

                       (Through video conferencing)

Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Devasthanam,
Zonnawada (V), Batchireddy Palem (M),
SPSR Nellore District, rep. by its
Executive Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner     ..           Appellant

                                  Versus

S.Balasubramanyam, S/o Shivaiah,
Aged 62 years, Occ : Archaka, Sri Mallikarjuna
Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Devasthanam,
Zonnawada (V), Butchireddy Palem (M),
SPSR Nellore District & Others                         ..     Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                  :     Sri G.Ramana Rao

Counsel for the Respondent No.1            :     Sri D.V.Sasidhar

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3        :     G.P. for Endowments



                            JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt : 19.01.2021

(ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ)

1. This appeal is presented against an order dated 27.02.2020

passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4907 of 2020.

2. At paragraph Nos.3 and 4 in the aforesaid order, it is recorded

as follows :

"3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to non-payment of remuneration to the petitioner, who is

working as Archaka in 3rd respondent-Temple, the petitioner gave a representation to the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent has issued the proceedings dated 14.10.2019 directing the payment of Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner. As the same was not complied with, the matter was taken to the notice of the respondents 2 and 3 by representations dated 23.12.2019 and 25.1.2020, and the 2nd respondent by virtue of the order in Rc.No.COE-13023(43)/8/2018, dated 29.1.2020, directed the 3rd respondent to explain, within one week, why the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 14.10.2019 are not implemented, failing which action will be initiated against the 3rd respondent as per CCA Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such stringent order; the 3rd respondent is not paying the remuneration of the petitioner.

4. Hence, in view of the above, the 3rd respondent is directed to release the remuneration of the petitioner forthwith."

3. In the aforesaid order, at paragraph No.2 it is noted that

learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for

Endowments for the respondents were heard. The appeal is

preferred by the respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition. On a query of

this court as to whether the respondent No.3 was represented

before the learned single judge, Mr.G.Ramana Rao, learned counsel

for the appellant, very fairly submits that he was present when the

impugned order was passed, but, he had sought time to obtain

instructions.

4. On a query of this Court as to whether the order dated

14.10.2019, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.25,000/-

to the writ petitioner, was assailed, we are told that apparently the

same has not been put to challenge before any court. However, the

learned counsel has submitted that a representation was submitted

on 16.07.2020 before the Commissioner, Endowments Department.

It is stated that no steps had also been taken by the appellant to

assail the non-disposal of the said representation.

5. In view of the above background, we are of the opinion that

no interference is called for with the order impugned and

accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                        C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr