IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 514 of 2000 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 5484 OF 1990 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.VENKATESWARA RAO The Division Bench of this Court made the following judgment: THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. WRIT APPEAL No. 5 1 4 OF 2000 JUDGMENT : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari } The writ appeal is filed aggrieved of the order in WP.No.5484 of 1990, dated 27-7-1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The cause title of the writ petition shows that the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as against the petitioners 1 to 3 in the main writ petition, who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in this writ appeal. 3. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were originally working in “Sri Prasanna Venkateswara Swamy Temple”, Appalayagunta village of Chittoor district. Thereafter, Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam took over the management of the temple and all persons who were working at that time in the said temple were also taken over by the management of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. The said absorption of the temple staff was done by the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam with the specific approval of the Government, which had issued GO.Ms.No.709, dated 12-7-1989. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been absorbed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, they are still being paid consolidated salary, while the regular employees recruited by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam doing identical work are being paid the salary in a higher scale. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they are entitled to the same salary as is being paid to other workers. 6. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the respondent has magnanimously increased the consolidated pay of the petitioners immediately after they were absorbed by the respondent. It is further contended that the salary of the petitioners cannot be enhanced by resorting to GO.Ms.No.895 dated 23-1-1988. The petitioners are not against the sanctioned posts and they cannot be absorbed on monthly time scale. 7. In view of the above rival contentions, the learned single Judge while disposing of the main writ petition directed to consider the petitioners case for regularization and pass appropriate orders regularizing them within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Questioning the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.5484 of 1990, the respondent filed the present writ appeal. 9. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam as well as Sri Shravan Kumar, representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the grounds of writ appeal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the main writ petition. 10. As can be seen from the record, the learned single Judge having observed that the petitioners were not regularized on the ground that they were working in the erstwhile temple of Sri Prasanna Venkateswara Swami Temple and they cannot be regularized and the said temple along with staff was taken over by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam through GO.Ms.No.709, dated 12-7-1989. The learned single Judge further directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and pass appropriate orders regularizing them. It is also further observed that the date of regularization also kept open to pass appropriate orders and granted two months time. The record further shows that the writ appeal is filed on 08-6-2000 along with WAMP.No.996 of 2000 seeking stay of the operation of the order passed in WP.No.5484 of 1990 but the stay was declined. The appellant-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam is aware of the fact that in these hard days of galloping double-digit inflation how the petitioners can work on a paltry sum of Rs.150/- ? This kind of dilly-dallying by the appellant-authorities of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam would cause untold hardship for the respondents-petitioners to maintain themselves at a subsistence level. It is very unfortunate to observe that the inaction on the part of the appellant-authorities is not justifiable and nothing is detrimental to the appellant-authorities of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to regularize the services of the petitioners. 11. Under the above circumstances, while confirming the orders passed by the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that the time granted by the learned single Judge for regularizing the services of the petitioners is extended by six months. The appellant-authorities of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam shall regularize the services of the petitioners by avoiding the least possible delay and pass appropriate orders, positively within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 12. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ________________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 11-06-2008. I s L.