Sri S.T.G.Sreemannarayana ... vs The State Of Telangana, Revenue ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4407 Tel

      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. 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. 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

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

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

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

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

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.

1967(2) AnWR 366

2013 CJ(SC) 173

1998 CJ(SC) 1148

1966 CJ(SC) 237 : AIR 1967 SC 1910

1998 CJ(SC) 14 W.P.No.18443 of 2015

(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.

1986 CJ(AP) 54 : AIR 1988 AP 124

1978 CJ(SC) 11 : AIR 1979 SC 1149 W.P.No.18443 of 2015

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. 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

13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 06.09.2022 Svv