THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19695 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Peravali Group of Temples in the year 1993. Later on, he was transferred to Sri Chennakesava Swamy and Sri Peddintlammavari Temples at Cherukuwada as Executive Officer, in the year 2001. Disciplinary proceedings were imitated in the year 2005, leading to suspension of the petitioner. Several proceedings ensued thereafter, and ultimately, the petitioner filed a representation with the Government. After conducting enquiry, the Commissioner of Endowments, the 1st respondent herein imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect through proceedings dated 09-08- 2006. The petitioner approached this Court, challenging the said order. He was not successful. Ultimately, he approached the Government through a representation. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1526, Revenue Vigilance Department, dated 28-07-2008, setting aside the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 04-07-2009, directing that the period during which the petitioner was under suspension be regularized as leave, for which he is eligible. The petitioner submits that once the order of punishment was set aside, he was entitled for the relief of regularization of the entire period of suspension, as on duty. The other grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being posted as Manager. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. The petitioner was on deputation to a different institution and he was placed under suspension on account of the irregularities, that were committed at that place. The punishment imposed against him came to be set aside by the Government through G.O.Rt.No.1526, dated 28-07-2008. However, the G.O., is silent as to the manner in which, the period of suspension must be treated. It is only when the Appellate Authority exonerates the employee from the charges, that the period of suspension needs to be treated as on duty. Admittedly, the Government did not exonerate the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any genuine grievance against the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 04-07-2009. So far as the claim of the petitioner for being posted as Manager or Executive Officer is concerned, it would be governed by seniority in the parent institution. In case any employee, who is junior to the petitioner in the Peravali Group of Temples, i.e. the parent institution of the petitioner is appointed as Manager or Executive Officer, his case also shall be considered, on par with the juniors. In the recent past, this Court had to deal with several cases of employees of one religious institution, being sent on deputation, to other institutions, for decades together. The result is that such employees are feeling as though their services are completely detached from the parent institution, and in many cases, they are developing vested interests in the Temples, to which they are deputed. Several complications are arising, not only on administrative side, but also in the context of having disciplinary control over them. In addition to that, the employees of the institutions to which, those from other institutions are deputed, are feeling genuine grievance, in the context of their promotions, etc. It is felt that the practice of sending employees of one institution to another has to be completely discouraged, and if there exist any exceptional cases, deputation must be made or continued with the specific approval of the Government, that too, for specific reasons to be recorded, and not otherwise. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, a) directing that the case of the petitioner for being posted as Manager shall be considered, if only any employee junior to him in the Peravali Group of Temples has been posted to that place, and b) the Commissioner of Endowments, the 1st respondent herein shall ensure that employees of one Devasthanam are not deputed to work in other Devasthanams, and henceforth, fresh deputation or continuance of the existing one, shall be with the approval of the Government, which, in turn, shall record specific reasons, warranting such action. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-10-2011. KO