IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23630 of 2007 Between: 1 D. Brahmam S/o. Pullayya R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. 2 M. Ravi S/o.Markendayulu R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. 3 M. Srinviasa Rao S/o. Nageswara Rao R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. 4 E. Saidulu S/o. Gopaiah R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. 5 M. Satyam S/o.. Subba Rao R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. 6 E.Nagaraju S/o. Saidulu R/o. Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri Tirupathamma Ammavari Devasthanam, Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal, Krishna District, Rep. by its Regional Joint Commissioner-Executive Officer. 2 The Commissioner, The Endowments Department, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st Respondent in preventing the petitioners from discharging the duties as Barbers in the Kesakandana Hall for purposing of tonsuring and not paying the remuneration @ 2.50 paisa per each ticket as arbitrary illegal, and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to constitute to utilize the service of the petitioners as barbers in the Kesakandana hall of the temple and pay the remuneration without any delay in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: At Sri Tirupathamma Ammavari Devasthanam (for short ‘the Devasthanam’), Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal, Krishna District, tonsuring takes place at a hall. The Devasthanam engages the services of barbers by paying remuneration. The petitioners claim to have been engaged as barbers for some period. Their grievance is that they have not been paid remuneration for the services rendered by them and they are prevented from undertaking the services. The Devasthanam ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that tonsuring services in the Devasthanam are being rendered traditionally by 32 barbers since several decades and the petitioners have been engaged due to pressure of work. It is stated that an amount of Rs.38,012/- was paid to the petitioners for the services rendered by them between February and August, 2007. It is also stated that there is no necessity to engage any barbers in addition to the existing 32 members. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The engagement of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis to meet the pressure of work. Though the petitioners made a grievance for non-payment of remuneration, the respondents have categorically stated that the amount of Rs.38,012/- was paid on 14.11.2007 itself. The question of directing the ﬁrst respondent to continue the services of the petitioners does not arise, since much would depend upon the necessity. This much, however, can be said that as and when there exists any necessity to engage any fresh or additional barbers, the case of the petitioners shall be considered. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall consider the feasibility of availing the services of the petitioners purely on contractual basis, as and when necessity arises. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.09.2008. kdl