HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.4992 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to declare that the order of the ﬁrst respondent, dated 05-03-2002 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, dated 30-12- 2000 by denying the legitimate beneﬁts to him in respect of the office of Pradhana Archaka in Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple, Srisailam, is arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge the functions of the oﬃce of Pradhana Archaka in Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple, Srisailam and to pay the remuneration to him from 04-10-1991 onwards along with the arrears and all other beneﬁts as per the scheme formulated by the State pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in A. S. NARAYANA DEEKSHITULU v. STATE OF A.P. [1]. 2. The petitioner raised the following contentions: The petitioner is the Hereditary Archaka of Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple at Srisailam. He was declared as Hereditary Archaka for the life time in O.S.No.29 of 1964 on the ﬁle of the District Munsif Court, Kurnool. He inherited the Hereditary Archakatvam from his father along with his junior paternal uncle and consequent on the death of the junior paternal uncle, his cousin assumed oﬃce as Hereditary Archaka as his deputy. The ﬁrst respondent granted permission to Sri M. Somasundara Sarma to perform Archaka Service through the proceedings, dated 27- 06-1977 as the petitioner was a central government servant. The petitioner retired with effect from 31-12-1988. He assumed charge as Pradhana Archaka in the year 1991 after the death of his cousin brother on 04- 10-1991, who worked as Pradhana Archaka till his death. In the capacity of Pradhana Archaka, he was in the custody of the ornaments of the Goddess. Suddenly, he was issued an order, dated 23-05-1996 to the eﬀect that he should handover the Gold and silver articles of the Goddess to Mr. Subba Narasaiah, Assistant Archaka. Questioning the said order, he ﬁled W.P.No.11645 of 1996 before this Court. He was not paid any remuneration from 1991. In the said writ petition, the second respondent ﬁled a counter to the eﬀect that since he crossed the age of 65 years, he should be deemed to have been retired. He cannot be removed without initiation of any disciplinary proceedings as several Archakas are being continued in the oﬃce despite the Judgment of the Supreme Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 21-12-2000 directing the petitioner to make a representation to the ﬁrst respondent requesting to grant all beneﬁts for which he is entitled. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation to the ﬁrst respondent praying that he should be allowed to continue as Pradhana Archaka on par with similarly situated Hereditary Archakas of temples at Srikalahasti. He also requested for payment of all the beneﬁts from 04-10-1991 to 31-05-1996 during which he worked as Pradhana Archaka along with the arrears as given to his brother late M. Somasundara Sarma. He also requested for payment of the emoluments as per the scheme approved by the Supreme Court in NARAYANA DEEKSHITULU’s case (1 supra). Since there was no reply to his representation, he was constrained to ﬁle a contempt case covered by C.C.No.170 of 2002. During the course of hearing of the contempt case, the ﬁrst respondent has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 05-03-2002 rejecting all beneﬁts which have been claimed and the contempt case was closed giving liberty to the petitioner to question the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit, the second respondent contended as follows: It is a fact that the family of the petitioner was declared as Medavaram family as Hereditary Archakas of Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple, Srisailam in O.S.No.29 of 1964 on the ﬁle of the District Munsif Court, Kurnool. Sri Medavaram Subbaramaiah performed Archakatvam on behalf of the Medavaram family till his death i.e., on 20-06-1975. It is also a fact that conditional orders were issued permitting Sri M. Somasundara Sarma S/o Late M. Subbaramaiah to assume charge as Hereditary Archaka of the Devasthanam in due consideration to the acceptance given by the petitioner and Sri M. Subramanyam, the elder son of late M. Subbaramaiah. Later, the Executive Oﬃcer, in his order, dated 15-07-1977 extended the time scale with all usual allowances to M.Somasundara Sarma with eﬀect from 27-06-1977. After the demise of M. Somasundara Sarma on 04-10-1991, the petitioner was allowed to perform Archakatvam service in Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple and the action of the Executive Oﬃcer in having permitted the petitioner to assume oﬃce on 04-10-1991 and to perform the duties was ratiﬁed subject to condition “pending ﬁnalization of the case or litigation before the Supreme Court of India”. The Supreme Court through its Judgment, dated 17-01-1996, upheld the validity of the amendments made to the Act. Accordingly, the Executive Oﬃcer, Srisailam Devasthanam through his letter, dated 23-05- 1996 asked the petitioner to handover the charge of gold and silver articles, which are in his possession, to the Devasthanam authorities in view of the order of the Supreme Court. The petitioner complied with the orders of the Executive Oﬃcer and handed over the Jewellery and other articles. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.11645 of 1996, an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month from 04-10-1991 to 23-05-1996 was paid after deducting the amounts payable by him to the Devasthanam towards residential quarter rent etc. In pursuance of the direction of the Court, the petitioner ﬁled a representation on 30-12-2000 to consider his case on sympathetic grounds. As the Hereditary rights have been abolished, the pay structure of the temple staff was fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.858, dated 08-10-1997 which is meant not only to the Hereditary Archakas or servants, who hold the oﬃce and rendering service as on the commencement of the Act 30 of 1987 and also for other employees. They do not apply to the petitioner since he did not render any Archakatvam service as on 23-05-1987 and was working in Central Government service till 31-12-1988 and getting pensionary beneﬁts from the Central Government from 01-01-1989. The services rendered by the petitioner from 04-01-1991 to 23-05-1996 is only a conditional arrangement without prejudice to the status quo orders issued by the Supreme Court regarding the abolition of Hereditary Rights and an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to get any pay scales according to G.O.Ms.No.858, dated 08-10-1997 for the period he worked since he had already crossed the age of superannuation prescribed for the religious staﬀ before the commencement of new pay structure, which was approved by the Supreme Court with eﬀect from 09-05-1997. As the petitioner is drawing pension as Ex-employee of the Central Government, he is not entitled to claim the second pension, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana submitted that though the petitioner was directed to deliver ornaments of the Deity, there was no order of removal or retirement to the petitioner passed by the respondents, therefore, he shall be deemed to be continued in service. He further submitted that in view of the amendment of Section 34 of the Endowments Act of 1987, the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in Archakatvam service as on the date of ﬁling of the petition and he will have the right to continue to perform Archakatvam service, therefore, it shall be held that there is no order of removal or termination passed by the respondents either on the ground that he reached the age of superannuation or that he was removed from service as a punishment under any disciplinary action. 5. The learned Government Pleader representing the Endowments Department submits that the petitioner is a retired employee and he requested the Executive Oﬃcer to permit him to perform the duties of Archakatvam service. He was permitted and by virtue of a direction of this Court, he was paid salary @ Rs.1,500/- per month for the period he worked and ultimately, he was asked not to attend the duty on account of his crossing the age of 65 years and as the post of Hereditary Archaka was abolished under the 1987 Act, he is not entitled to claim any hereditary right to continue to remain in Archakatvam service forever. As the amendment to the Act came into force in 2007, it will not have any retrospective eﬀect, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the family members of the petitioner were recognized as Hereditary Archakas of Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple at Srisailam through the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.29 of 1964 on the ﬁle of the District Munsif, Kurnool. One Medavaram Subbaramaiah performed Archakatvam service on behalf of the their family till his death on 20-06-1975. Conditional orders were issued to Sri M. Samasundera Sarma, the son of late Subbaramaiah permitting him to assume charge as Hereditary Archaka in due consideration to the consent letters given by the petitioner and Sri M. Subramanyam, the eldest son of late M. Subbaramaiah. It is also an undisputed fact that the Executive Oﬃcer issued a letter, dated 15-07-1977 extending the time scale with usual allowances to M. Somasundara Sarma with eﬀect from 27-06-1977. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner worked in Central Government and retired with eﬀect from 31-12-1988. After the death of Mr. Somasundara Sarma on 04-10-1999, the petitioner was allowed to perform Archakatvam service in Sri Bhramaramba Devi Temple, Srisailam by the Executive Oﬃcer and the action of the Executive Oﬃcer permitting the petitioner to perform the duties was ratiﬁed by the Commissioner subject to the ﬁnalization of the case pending before the Supreme Court of India. It is also an undisputed fact that subsequent to the delivery of the Judgment of the Supreme Court on 17-01-1996, the E.O. issued a memo, dated 23-05-1996 asking the petitioner to handover the charge of gold and silver articles of the Deity, which are in his possession, to the Devasthanam authorities. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner handed over the articles as per the orders issued by the E.O. When the petitioner approached this court through W.P.No.11645 of 1997, this Court through the order, dated 04-07-1997 in W.P.M.P.No.2408 of 1997 directed the E.O. to pay the petitioner a consolidated amount of Rs.1,500/- per month for the period from 04-10-1991 to 31-05-1996. Accordingly, the Executive Oﬃcer paid a sum of Rs.63,180/-, being the remuneration from 04-10-1991 to 23-05-1996 after deducting the amounts payable to the Devasthanam towards the rent of the residential quarter. Subsequently, W.P.No.11645 of 1996 was disposed of on 21-12-2000 by this Court directing the petitioner to make a representation to the Commissioner, Endowments for appropriate orders. When the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, the Commissioner observed that the petitioner cannot enter into service beyond 65 years and he crossed 66 years as on that date. The Commissioner further observed that the petitioner, who has been drawing pension as an Ex-employee of Central Government cannot claim a second pension as Archaka of Devasthanam, therefore, the request of the petitioner for granting of pension was rejected through the proceedings, dated 05-03-2002. 8. Though the petitioner contended that he was appointed as Pradhana Archaka, no proceedings have been ﬁled before this Court to substantiate the claim that he was appointed as Pradhana Archaka and he is granted to get time scale as provided to the post of Pradhana Archaka. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner crossed the age of 66 years by the date of asking him not to continue in service. The order of the Executive Oﬃcer, dated 23-05- 1996, in pursuance of which the petitioner was prevented from attending duties, reads as follows: “In continuation of this office reference cited, Sri M. Venkata Subbaiah is hereby informed to hand over the charge of Gold and Silver Articles which are in his possession to Sri G. Subba Narasaiah, Assistant Archaka of Amba Temple at once in the presence of P.A. to Executive Oﬃcer (Temple) by virtue of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment and submit the charge list of articles to this office forthwith.” There is no mention in the said proceedings, dated 23-05-1996 that as to why the petitioner was directed to hand over the articles, whether he was removed from service or whether he retired on attaining the age of superannuation as per the provisions of Endowments Act or instructions thereon or whether he was prevented from attending the duties as a punishment in consequence of any disciplinary action. 9. Under the principles of natural justice, every person, who is under service, either temporary or permanent, is entitled to know as to why he was asked not to attend the duties. But, there is no such mention in the proceedings, dated 23-05-1996. In the absence of speciﬁc order, either retiring or removing the petitioner from service with all consequential beneﬁts, the order, dated 23-05-1996 cannot be treated as legal and it is liable to be set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service till he is retired or removed from service according to the procedure prescribed under law. 10. So far as the claim of pension of the petitioner is concerned, he was drawing pension from the Central Government after retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. He rendered service in the temple from 04-10-1991 to 31-05-1996 i.e., for a period of 4 1/2 years. He did not produce any order of his appointment. It is not known whether his appointment is adhoc or on time scale. For the employees working under the Endowments Department, the revised pension rules are applicable. As per the revised pension rules, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension unless he completes a particular number of years of service. The petitioner has put in only 4 1/2 years service. There is no express provision under the Endowments Act that despite his drawing pension from the previous employment, he is entitled to pension for the subsequent employment. In the absence of such provision, the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary beneﬁts for the service he rendered as Archaka in the temple from 04- 10-1991 to 31-05-1996. Since the petitioner has not produced any order whether any time scale is ﬁxed to him and whether he worked as Pradhana Archaka, he is not eligible for any scale to which Archakas are entitled to. 11. Section 9 of the Amendment Act 33 of 2007 reads as follows: 9. Amendment of Section 34:- In Section 34 of the principal Act, after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be added, namely:- “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- sections (1) and (2) of this section, the qualiﬁed members of those Archaka families which were continuing in archakatvam service under the provisions of the repealed the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and recognized as such by the competent authority shall continue to have the right to archakatvam without having any right to emoluments such families used to receive earlier under Act 17 of 1966. However they shall receive emoluments in accordance with the scheme under Section 144. Section 34 of the main Act was amended by inserting sub-section (3). As per this sub-section, if any qualiﬁed member of Pradhana Archaka families, who were continued in archakatvam service under the provisions of repealed A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and recognized as such by the competent authority shall continue to have the right to Archakatvam without having right to emoluments to which the families used to receive earlier to Act 17 of 1966. But they are entitled to receive the emoluments in accordance with the scheme under Section 144 of the Act. By virtue of this Section and in view of the illegal order passed by the E.O., the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service till he is retired or removed from service according to the provision of the Act. 12. Therefore, the petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith into the post in which he was allowed to work in the temple previously on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/- till the date of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by granting the following reliefs as prayed for: 1. The order, of the E.O., dated 23-05-1996 is illegal, therefore, it is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with immediate eﬀect to the post in which he was permitted to work previously; and 2. The petitioner is entitled to remuneration @ Rs.1,500/- per month from 01-06-1996 till his pay, if any, is ﬁxed depending upon the qualiﬁcations including passing of Archaka Tests and eligibility to continue in service. He shall be paid the arrears of salary @ Rs.1,500/- per month from 01-06-1996 to till the date of this order. The petitioner is entitled to the same salary from the date of this order till further orders that are likely to be passed by the concerned authorities. 14. The petitioner is not entitled to any pension since there is no express provision in the Act that a retired employee, who is getting pension by virtue of the previous employment, is also entitled to pension. 15. This Court makes it clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from passing appropriate orders for removal or termination or continuation or ﬁxation of pay of the petitioner by keeping in view the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Amendment Act of 2007 and the qualiﬁcations of the petitioner to hold the post in which he previously worked. ____________________ (Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU, J) Date: 28-08-2008 YCR [1] (1996) 6 SCC 548