IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13977 of 2008 Between: T.Srinivas S/o.Kumaraswamy Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Temple, Anantagiri (V) Illanthakunta (M), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal. 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Musalamma Jatra, Gunjedu Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Warangal District. 4 The Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Temple, Anantagiri (V) Illanthakunta (M), Karimnagar 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in repatriating the petitioner to 6-(c) institution vide proceedings, dt. 10-2-2006 and not paying his salaries from February 2006 onwards as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to immediately transfer the petitioner to any 6-(b) institution wherein he could get his due salary, and further direct to pay salary arrears of the petitioner from February, 2006 onwards and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Temple, Anantagiri, Karimnagar District. Thereafter, he was transferred to various temples including the third respondent institution. The approved strength in the third respondent institution is only one Junior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner was repatriated to the fourth respondent temple vide proceedings dated 10.02.2006. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the transfer. His further complaint is that he is not being paid the salary by the fourth respondent and seeks appropriate directions. Heard Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, the learned Standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Basically, the petitioner is the employee of the fourth respondent. It is for the sake of convenience that the employees of various religious institutions were transferred from time to time to other institutions, by the competent authorities. The continuance of an employee either on the rolls of the parent institution or on deputation by way of transfer to another institution is subject to the financial viability. In case, it is found that it is no longer possible to continue an employee on deputation, it is always open and competent for the authorities concerned to repatriate the employees to the parent institution. The respondents did nothing more than that. It was found that the continuance of the petitioner at the third respondent institution was in excess of the approved cadre strength and he was repatriated to the parent institution. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the proceedings, dated 10.02.2006. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid the salary in the fourth respondent temple. The same needs to be examined by the Executive Officer as well as the second respondent. In case the appointment of the petitioner is against a vacancy within the approved cadre, he has to be paid the salary. Even where the funds of the temple to the permissible limits are not adequate to meet the salary, the payment had to be made proportionately. The petitioner can make a representation in this regard to the second respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the second respondent as regards the payment of salary or for being posted at other places. Such representation shall be examined and disposed of, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of presentation. The order, dated 10.02.2006, is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:03.07.2008 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}