Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3667 AP

          *HONOURBLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU
                 +   W.P.Nos.9641 and 12908 of 2021


% 21.09.2021
WP.No.9641 of 2021
# Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt,
Mantralayam, Kurnool District
                                                         ... Petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep., by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Guntur and 4 others
                                                      ... Respondents

WP.No.12908 of 2021 # M.Shivanand, S/o Dubbanna, Ramachandranagar, Mantralayam, Kurnool District ... Petitioner

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Special Secretary, Endowments Department, Guntur and 3 others ... Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned senior counsel rep. Sri G.V.S.Ganesh

! Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader

for Endowments

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2006 (3) ALD 22 2 (2017) 1 SCC 148

Manu/UP/0049/2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

WP.No.9641 and 12908 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

WP.No.9641 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner-Math for

the following reliefs:

"to declare a the Memo Nos. dated 04/07/2018 and 05/12/2018 issued by the Respondent No.1 herein and the consequent impugned direction in Rc.No.DP1/25031/3/2020 dated 19/04/2021 issued by the Respondent No.5 herein as inapplicable, void, without jurisdiction and without authority of law (b) and consequently issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Respondents herein permanently from implementing the impugned direction vide Rc.No.DP1/25031/3/2020 dated 19/04/2021 issued by the Respondent No.5 herein and (c) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including awarding of exemplary costs against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner and render justice..."

WP.No.12908 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner therein

for the following reliefs:

"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in not extending minimum time scale of pay attached to the last grade service even though the petitioner was discharging the duties similar to that of a Permanent employee by implementing the directions of the 2nd respondent dated 19.04.2021 in Rc.No.DP1/25032/3/2020 and the in action on the part

of the 3rd respondent even after bringing to his notice about the deprivation of Minimum Wages through the representation dated 17.05.2021 by the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the Minimum time scale of pay attached to the Sanitary Sweeper post along with arrears forthwith.."

This Court has heard Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned senior

counsel for the petitioner representing Sri G.V.S.Ganesh and

the Government Pleader for Endowments representing the

respondents in WP.No.12908 of 2021.

The order passed in WP.No.9641 of 2021 will have a

direct consequence on the second writ petition. Hence,

WP.No.9641 of 2021 was heard at length.

Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is a

Math, which is a specific religious denomination based at

Manthralayam in Kurnool. According to the learned senior

counsel, the writ petition had to be filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India because the respondent was

attempting to interfere with the activities of the Math and

directing the petitioner to pay minimum wages etc., to the

persons employed in the Math. This action of the respondent,

which is as per the memos dated 04.07.2018, 05.12.2018 and

the consequential direction dated 19.04.2021 is challenged.

Learned senior counsel argues that the Math is a religious

institution which is discharging both religious and secular

functions. It is his contention that the respondent-State does

not have the right to interfere with the Management of the

Math and issue the directions contained in the impugned

memos dated 04.07.2018, 05.12.2018 and the consequential

direction dated 19.04.2021. Learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that there is a clear distinction between a

temple and a Math. He relies upon section 2(17) of the A.P.

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments

Act, 1987 (for short „the Act), which defines a Math as an

institution whose principal duty is the propagation of religion

and philosophy or the philosophy of a denomination etc. He

points out that a temple is a place of public religious worship.

Therefore, he submits that there is a fundamental distinction

between a Math and a temple although both can be called a

religious institution. He draws the attention of this Court to

Chapter III and V of the Act; points out the distinction and

argues that the visible differences between Chapter III and V

make it clear that the respondents do not have the power or

control to interfere in these affairs of a Math. Relying upon

section 6 of the Act, learned senior counsel submits that this

section provides for the preparation and publication of list of

charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the

basis of income. Section 6(a) (ii), 6(b)(ii) clearly exclude a

„Math‟ from the operation of the section. He points out that

even though a Math is to be registered/included in the list,

the Commissioner does not have the power to change or alter

the classification given to the Math, unlike in the other cases

covered by Section 6(a), 6(b) or 6 (c) of the Act and depending

upon the incomes specified in these clauses.

Coming to the documents which are relied upon and are

filed as material papers, the learned senior counsel argues

that the memo dated 04.07.2018 and 05.12.2018 are relating

to specific temples alone and not to the Math. He points out

that memo dated 04.07.2018 deals with temple employees

and writ petitions filed for extension of minimum time scale of

pay. Learned senior counsel argues that the Government had

appointed a Committee which had issued directions to the

concerned Executive Officers of the temples to extend the

minimum time scale. Relying on the memo dated 05.12.2018

also, a similar argument is advanced. Learned senior counsel

also points out that this memo dated 05.12.2018 is an order

passed on a representation given by Junior Assistants of the

Srikalihasthiswara Swami Temple, Srikalahasthi. The

learned senior counsel also refers to the circular dated

24.09.2018 which also deals with temple employees service

matters, but does not deal with a Math. Learned senior

counsel also relies upon the proceedings dated 20.07.2018

filed with a counter of the respondents, wherein also he

points out that the writ petitions referred only to the

Devasthanams and temples and the Government memo which

is impugned is also referred to in the said letter. Learned

senior counsel points out that the last para of the letter is

clearly addressed to the Executive Officer of prominent

temples in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He draws the

attention of this Court to the addresses/recipients of the

letter from 1 to 10 who are all Executive Officers of temples

only. He therefore submits that the memos on which the

respondents are relying upon relate to the temples alone and

not to a Math. He also argues that the Minimum Wages Act

will not apply to a religious Math and states that the case law

referred to by him and filed as a material paper including the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Civil

Appeal No.5305 of 2007 is squarely applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the case. Lastly, he relies upon the

judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in

H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant, Disciple of Guru Devender Dass,

Sri Swamy Hatiramji Math, Tirumala, Tirupati v.

Commissioner of Endowments, Endowment Department,

Hyderabad1 to argue that the State cannot interfere in the

secular activities of the Math and give directions. Therefore,

he prays for orders.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for

Endowments argues that the respondents have control and

authority over the Math. She relies upon the definitions of

Sections 2(17), 2(23) and 29 read with Section 6 of the Act to

argue that a Math is also included in the provisions of the Act

and is subject to the control of the Commissioner and

Additional Commissioner as per section 8 of the Act. She

2006 (3) ALD 22

points out that the Commissioner has powers over the Maths

which are described in section 6 (b) as per 8(2) of the Act.

Learned Government Pleader also draws the attention of this

Court to the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions

and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules,

2000 issued by G.O.Ms.No.888 dated 08.12.2000 (hereinafter

called „the Service Rules‟) to argue that section 1 (ii) of the

Service Rules clearly states that the Rules shall apply to the

servants of all the Maths. Relying upon Sections 47 and 48 of

the Act, learned Government Pleader argues that what is

excluded in Section 48 of the Act are only six sections of the

Act (sections 18,19,20,21,22,25 and 28) and their

applicability to the Math. She therefore, submits that all the

other Sections are applicable and that the respondents are

entitled to issue the directions.

Coming to the issue of wages, learned counsel argues

that the respondents are not insisting upon the payment of

the wages, more so, under the Minimum Wages Act, but are

essentially trying to ensure that the equal pay for equal work

principle as enunciated in the case of State of Punjab v.

Jagjit Singh2 is actually followed. She points out that

therefore it is not the Minimum Wages Act, but the judgment

of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court which directed equal pay for

equal work and the extension of minimum time scale to

(2017) 1 SCC 148

equally placed servants of the society, which is directed to be

implemented.

COURT:

After considering the submissions made by both the

learned counsel, this Court notices that it is a fact that a

"Math" is distinct from a „Temple‟. Both are religious

institutions, but the purposes for which they are established

and the manner in which they function are clearly specified in

the definition itself. Section 2 (17) of the Act is as follows:

2 (17) "Math" means a Hindu Religious Institution presided over by a person, whose principal duty is to engage himself in the teaching and propagation of Hindu religion and philosophy or the teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sect or sampradaya to which the math belongs and in imparting religious instruction and training and rendering spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples ; and includes any place or places of religious worship, instruction or training which are appurtenant to the institution;

Section 2 (27) of the Act is as follows:

2 (27) "Temple" means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes sub- shrines, utsava mandapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and land;

A reading of these two Sections make it clear that a

Math is an institution headed by a person whose primary job

is to engage himself in teaching, propagation of religious

philosophy etc., and impart religious training etc. On the

other hand, a temple is a place, which is dedicated to and

keep used as a place of public religious worship. The

distinction between these two institutions is clear.

Under Section 6 of the Act also, the income or the

change in income of the Math cannot lead to a change in the

classification of the Math. It is only possible for the

institutions and endowments under Section 6(a), 6(b) and 6

(c) of the Act, which are included in this section. If their

income exceeds or falls below the stipulated limit, for the

three years, their position can be changed, but this is clearly

not applicable to a Math.

It is also true that under section 8(2) of the Act, the

Commissioner has certain powers as mentioned in this

section in case of a Math, registered under section 6(b), but

the question in this case is whether the power extends to

giving the direction to pay Minimum Wage or the minimum

time scale. No specific statutory provision has been pointed

out to support the argument that power is given to the

Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner to interfere in

the secular activity of the service conditions of the employees

of a Math and to give directions.

The distinction between Chapter III and V of the Act also

is very clear. Chapter III of the Act deals with administration

and management of Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments, whereas Chapter V deals with Maths as

Specific Endowments. Chapter III contains provisions for

appointment of a trustee, for appointment and duties of an

Executive Officer, appointment of Engineers etc., appointment

of Office holders and servants, (section 35) and so on. Power

to punish office holders and servants is also given to the

trustee under section 37; to the Commissioners under 38(a)

of the Act under certain circumstances. The power to

transfer is also conferred under section 39 of the Act.

However, when it comes to chapter V, these sort of sections

conferring power over Officers/staff etc., of a Math are

conspicuous by their absence. Section 48 of Chapter V also

excludes Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 28 from their

applicability to a Math, which deal with Board of Trustees etc.

The other sections do not deal with the employees or the

servants of the Math.

In the opinion of this Court, a general power of

superintendence given to the Commissioner does not extend

to interfere in the secular activity and is limited in its scope.

A reading of section 8 makes it clear that the superintendence

and control includes the power to pass an order to ensure

that institution is properly administered and the income is

spent for the purpose for which they were found. The use of

the conjunction „and‟ makes it clear that this power under

section 8 (1) is to ensure that the funds are spent for the

purposes for which they are intended only. Similarly, section

8(2) which starts with a non-obstante clause also talks of

exercise of powers „conferred‟ on him or the functions

„entitled‟ to him by the Act. No statutory provision has been

pointed out by which this particular power to give directions

to pay minimum wages etc., is shown to the Court. Lastly,

this Court is of the opinion on this issue that if section 8(1)

and section 49 of the Act are read together, the limited

powers of the Commissioner become clear. They are limited

to the fixing/spending/utilization of the „dittam‟ only. In case

of disagreement, the matter has to be referred to a Court for

decision (Section 49-Proviso). Similarly, the amendments to

sections 51-53 etc., where the Commissioner has been

substituted by the "Dharmika Parishad" also makes it clear

that the role of the Commissioner is very limited.

Even the Rules, which are relied upon, are in the

opinion of this Court are not applicable with regard to the

service conditions, pay; allowances etc. The Appointing

Authority referred to in the Rules (Rule 6) talks of a person

who is mentioned in section 35 of the Act namely the

„Trustee‟. Rule 5 also talks of a power being given to a

Trustee of the institution specifying to prepare a schedule

specifying the designations, number of posts, scale of pay,

allowances etc. The reference is again to a Trustee.

Similarly, Rule 36 deals with 8 specific temples to which the

Rules also apply. Cadre strength is for these 8 temples also

fixed by the Commissioner (Rule 38) and it cannot be varied

by the „Board of Trustee‟ (section 38(2). The Gratuity, Life

Insurance scheme described in Annexure-1 and as per Rule

37 (a) relates only to section 6(a) and (b) institutions. These

rules are also framed under section 35 of the Act, which is

under Chapter III of the Act. Therefore, this Court has to

hold that the Math does not come within these Rules.

Apart from this, the argument about Minimum Wages

Act as advanced by the learned senior counsel has to be

accepted. Learned senior counsel relying upon the definition

in Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act and the preamble

argues that this Act will not apply to a Math at all. He also

relies upon the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

which is filed as a material paper in Civil Appeal No.5305 of

2019. It was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the

Minimum Wages Act does not apply to a temple. The

judgment of the Alhabad High Court from which the Civil

Appeals were filed are also filed as material papers. They

clearly show that the Minimum Wages Act applies only to

certain industries and not to a temple. Subsequent judgment

of the high Court of Allahabad reported in Shree Satya

Narain Tulsi Manas Mandir v. Workman Compensation

Commissioner3 in which proceedings which the order of the

Supreme Court referred to are also filed as material papers.

The Minimum Wages Act applies to certain

employments (preamble) which are specified as „scheduled

employments‟ (section 2(g). The minimum wages are fixed for

Manu/UP/0049/2012

employments specified in part-I/II of the schedule (Section 3).

The schedule is silent about employment in a Math.

The learned Government Pleader sought to distinguish

the issue by saying that the State is not trying to enforce the

Minimum Wages Act, but is trying to rely upon equal pay for

equal work and the judgment in Jagjit Singh's case (2

supra). But a reading of the counter would shows that (para

13), it is pleaded very clearly that the petitioners are under a

bounden duty to pay minimum wages to their employees.

Therefore, the argument that only the judgment of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Jagjit Singh is being

enforceable is not strictly correct.

Lastly, this Court also notices that the petitioners have

relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble high Court of A.P.

reported in H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant, Disciple of Guru

Devender Dass, Sri Swamy Hatiramji Math, Tirumala,

Tirupati (1 supra). The learned single Judge by referring to

the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India held as

follows:

29. It is also relevant to note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Sri Sri Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of A.P.

MANU/SC/0368/1996 : [1996]1SCR929 , in which the Court was dealing with the provisions under The A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987).

Chapter V of the Act deals with maths and specific endowments attached thereto. Section 47 defines

'mathadhipathi' to mean any person whether known as Mahant or by any other name in whom "the administration and management of a math or specific endowment attached to a math are vested". In the concept of mathadhipathi, both the elements of power to hold property and duty to properly maintain it are blended and neither can be detached from the other. The Mahant, therefore, as the spiritual head of the math is entrusted with the administration and management of the math or the specific endowment. The personal or beneficial interest of the Mahant in the endowment attached to the math is manifested in his power of administration and disposal of the property. His right to administer and manage the property endowed to the math and other rights of similar character are vested in the office of the Mahant and, therefore, they are legal rights attached to the management and the administration of the property endowed to the math. He holds the office by custom and usage of the institution. He acts for the benefit of the institution of which he is the head. The Mahant as an ascetic holds the property and, therefore, it is not heritable like ordinary devolution of the property since he has completely severed all his mundane connections with his natural family; cut off from the mundane affairs and is ordained to impart religious education to his disciples and teaching of the religious scriptures etc. to the followers of the religion or the sect. Therefore, the ordinary rules of succession to Mahantship do not apply.

30. In the light of the above well-settled principles of law with regard to the rights of the mathadhipathis, undoubtedly the State cannot claim any power or authority to take over the management of the math by separating the religious functions and secular affairs of the math. No doubt, in cases of misconduct or mismanagement of the properties by the mahanth, it is open to the State to initiate action under Section 51 of the Act which provides for removal of mathadhipathi.

However, the said provision, under no circumstances, can be held to have conferred power on the State to continue a custodian to manage the secular affairs of the math indefinitely, in spite of the fact that the vacancy of a mathadhipathi has been filled up on permanent basis under Section 53 of the Act.

The learned single Judge clearly held that only in cases

of misconduct or mismanagement of the properties by the

Mahant, it would be permissible for the State to interfere

under section 51 of the Act (which is found in Chapter V).

This judgment clearly holds the field and applies to the facts

and circumstances of the case.

This Court also holds that the purpose in which the

memos dated 04.07.2018 and 05.12.2018 were issued cannot

be lost sight of. They were issued based upon the interim

orders passed in various litigations pertaining to temples and

temple employees only. The provisions of the Act and

interpretation placed on the same relying on the judgment of

the learned single Judge of the Court lead to a conclusion

that a Math, which is a separate institution rendering certain

religious and other functions pertaining to a particular

denomination is different from a temple which is open to all

for worship. The Math has its own area of operation and the

respondents cannot interfere in its secular activity. The

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is not applicable to the Math.

The judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, the definitions in the

Minimum Wages Act, also support this conclusion. The

autonomy given to a Math to maintain and administer its

activities also supports the view that the respondents cannot

interfere in every activity. If the respondents have such a

power to interfere every activity it would run contrary to the

constitutional and other guarantees given to the religious

denominations to carry on their own activities.

One fleeting argument was advanced that the deponent

of the affidavit did not have the power to file the writ petition.

This Court notices that this is a curable defect and it is not

fatal to the entire case. In addition, the

respondents/petitioners have also filed an authorization at

page 77 of the material papers and the deponent is given

power to attend to matters relating to laws and services and

any other Math related issues in different forums of law. In

the opinion of this Court, this is enough to file/prosecute this

writ.

For all the above mentioned reasons, the memos dated

04.07.2018; 05.12.2018 and the consequential memo dated

19.04.2021 are held to be inapplicable to the petitioner-Math.

The respondents cannot enforce the same against the

petitioner.

For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. In

view of the orders passed, in W.P.No.9641 of 2021, this Court

holds that the petitioner in WP.No.12908 of 2021 is not

entitled to any relief. The writ petition is dismissed. Office is

directed to attach a copy of the order in WP.No.9641 of 2021

whenever a copy of the order is issued in WP.No.12908 of

2021.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

stand dismissed.

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 21.09.2021 Note: L.R. copy be marked.

KLP