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. 13978 of 2008 Between: Ankala Omprakash S/o.Babu Rao Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Sannur(V) Rayapathi(M) Warangal ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Commissioner of Endowments Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Endomets Endowments Department,Warangal 3 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Rep.by its Executive Offiecer Sanor(V) Wardhannapet Sannor(V) Wardhannapet Tq.Warangal District 4 The Executive Officer Sri Sammakka Saralamma Jatra,Agramphad(V) Atmakur(M) Warangal 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,o rder or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioner from 4th respondent 6-B temple to 3rd respondent 6-C institution under the guise of the repatriation by proceedings in Rc No.A3/972/2008 dt.18-3-2006, as illegal arbitrary and violative of Art 14,16,and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner from 14-6-2006 onwards and further direct the respondents 1and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to any 6-(b) or 6(a) institution. 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 Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Sannor Village, Wardhannapet Taluq, Warangal District. Thereafter, he was transferred to various temples including the fourth respondent institution. The approved strength in the fourth respondent institution is only one Junior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner was repatriated to the third respondent temple vide proceedings, dated 18.03.2006. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the transfer. His further complaint is that he is not being paid the salary by the third 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 third 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 fourth 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 18.03.2006. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being paid the salary in the third 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 18.03.2006, is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:03.07.2008 kdl