IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19866 of 2008 Between: 1. T.Venkateswarlu, S/o. T.Pullaiah, Date of Joining 3-8-1977, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. P.Srinivasan, S/o. Ponnu Iyyer, Date of Joining 29-7-1978 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3. U.V.Subramanyam, S/o. U.V.Kameswara Rao, Date of Joining 15-3-1979 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. P.Madhava Reddy, S/o. P.Rajagopal Reddy, Date of Joining 9-8-1979 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5. E.Venkata Sivaiah, S/o. E.Venkataramaiah, Date of Joining 24-9-1984 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 6. Indela Pedabi Reddy, S/o. I.Bai Reddy, Date of Joining 13-5-1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 7. V.Ramanaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Date of Joining 13-5-1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 8. A.Venkatarami Redy, S/o. Venkaiah, Date of Joining 13-5-1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 9. K.V.Siva Kumar, S/o. Sivagurukulu, Date of Joining 21-5-1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 10. B.Ananda Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Date of Joining 1-10-1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 11. K.Venugopal, S/o. Satyanarayana, Date of Joining 21.12.1981 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 12. G.Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. G.venkatarami Reddy, Date of Joining 9-8-1984 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 13. S.chandrasekhar, S/o. Obaiah, Date of Joining 22.06.1985 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 14. B.Manoharam, S/o. B.Polaiah, Date of Joining 28-6-1985 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 15. D.Nageswara Rao, S/o. d.Seshaiah, Date of Joining 5-11-1986 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 16. P.Jagadeswar Reddy, S/o. P.Kesava Reddy, Date of Joining 21-7-1989 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 17. G.Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o. G.subba Reddy, Date of Joining 21-7-1989 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 18. K.Padmavathi, W/o. R.Krishna Reddy, Date of Joining 12-7-1979 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 19. V.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. V.guruva Reddy, Date of Joining 20.2.1980 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 20. V.Sampathi, W/o. K.Rajendra Babu, Date of Joining 17-7-1980 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Estate Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the list prepared for allotment of House Sites by the respondents as per the TTD Trust Board Resolution dated 26 / 27-08-1993 is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.PHARINATHA GUPTHA(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following: *THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :19866 OF 2008 % 27.11.2008 Between: # T.Venkateswarlu and others …Petitioners And $ The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirumati Devasthanam and another …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: MR.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: MR.PHARINATHA GUPTHA(SC FOR TTD) < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19866 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the employees of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam. They joined the service of the Devastanam between 1977 and 1989 in various Departments. The Devastanam introduced a scheme known as “own your house” for its employees in the year 1983. House sites were allotted to eligible employees, on the basis of seniority, subject to availability of plots. In the recent past, the Trust Board of the Devastanam resolved to provide house sites to its employees. One of the clauses contained in the scheme is that such of the employees, who have availed House Building Loan (HBL) from the Devastanam, or those who have been allotted plots or flats on earlier occasion, would not be extended any benefit under the new scheme. The petitioners were denied allotment of house sites, on the ground that they have availed HBL. They challenge the action of the Devastanam, on the ground that the denial of allotment to them amounts to discrimination. They plead that there is a facility for the employees to avail loan from other sources also, to construct houses, and even the employees, who otherwise own houses or plots, are not excluded in the process. On behalf of the Devastanam, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the employees, who availed the HBL, constitute a class by themselves, inasmuch as the loans are extended at concessional rates. According to it, allotment of plots to the employees, who have availed HBL, would lead to undue enrichment of such employees, and they would stand extended the double benefit. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the seniority alone deserves to be treated as the criterion for allotment of plots, subject to the condition that the employee must not have been extended similar benefit. He contends that there is no legal basis for the respondents in denying allotment of plots to the petitioners. According to him, when it is permissible to allot a plot to a person, who otherwise owns it, it hardly makes any difference whether such acquisition was by obtaining HBL from the Devastanam, or from own resources of the employee, or by obtaining loan from other financial agencies. Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Devastanam submits that having regard to the fact that all the employees cannot be allotted plots, reasonable classification was undertaken and the employees, who have been extended the HBL, were excluded in the process. He contends that sanction of HBL is a facility, akin to allotment of plot and an employee cannot claim double benefit. The only ground, on which the petitioners are denied allotment of house plots by the Devastanam, is that they have been extended HBL. In view of the fact that adequate land is not available to provide house sites to all the employees, reasonable criteria need to be adopted to short list the beneficiaries. One of the conditions contained in the scheme that such of the employees, who have been allotted plots on earlier occasion, are not eligible. There is no dispute as regards this condition. The petitioners do not have any grievance about it, since they have not been allotted plots earlier. In the recent past, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005, which disentitles the Government employees, who have received the benefit of concessional allotment from the Government, in his/her capacity as member of any society or group. Even this does not apply to the petitioners. It is too difficult to equate the employees, who have been allotted house sites on earlier occasion, with those, who have availed the HBL. It has already been mentioned that the employees, who otherwise acquire or own houses, are not excluded or disqualified. The HBL would enable the employee either to construct a house on the plot, which is already owned by him, or to purchase a built up house. Except that he has availed the loan facility from the Devastanam, he stands on the same footing as any other employee, who owns a house, otherwise than through allotment by the Devastanam. It is not as if that the employees do not have the facility to secure loan from other agencies. The only difference is that the loan borrowed from the Devastanam would carry a relatively meager rate of interest. On that sole basis, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of allotment of house plots, if they are otherwise entitled to. Though the employees, who were extended the HBL by the Devastanam, may constitute a class by themselves, such classification has no nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It must not be ignored that the loan, together with interest is recovered from the employees. There could have been justification, to deny allotment of plots, if any financial aid, enabling the employee to acquire the property, was extended. When the entire amount together with interest is recovered, the small benefit in the form of difference of interest should not lead to disqualification of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for allotment of house sites, along with other employees, without disqualifying them on the ground that they have been extended the house building loan. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J) Date: 27.11.2008 Note: L.R. copy to be marked B/o JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19866 of 2008 Date: JSU *THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.19866 of 2008 % 27-11-2008 Between: T.Venkateshwarlu and others .... PETITIONER AND 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The Estate Officer, Triumala Tirupati Devastanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: SRI S.VENKATESHWARA RAO Standing Counsel for TTD < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: