IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15906 of 2008 Between: T. Ramesh Reddy S/o. Shiva Shankar Reddy O/o. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Ammavari Temple, Zonnawada, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Officer-Assistant Commissioner, Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Ammavari Temple Zonnawada, Nellore District. 3 B. Raghunatha Reddy Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Nellore, Nellore 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 an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in transferring the petitioner in his proceedings No.B1/20462/2008, dated 13.06.2008 from Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Ammavari Temple, Zonnawada, Nellore District to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Nellore, Nellore District is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and against to provisions of Endowment Act and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 13.06.2008 by directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner as Junior Assistant at Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Ammavari Temple, Zonnawada, Nellore District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant in Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Kamakshi Tayee Ammavari Temple, Zonnawada, Nellore District, in the year 1993. In the recent past, he was transferred to Vinjamur Group Temples, Vinjamur, in the same district, vide proceedings, dated 29.01.2008, issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.2436 of 2008, and an interim order was passed therein. The 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 13.06.2008, effecting transfer of several employees working in 6(a) institutions. The petitioner was transferred to Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Nellore, vice the 3rd respondent herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the institution at which he is working is categorized under 6(a), whereas Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, is classified as 6(c). He contends that not only the payment of salary to the petitioner would become uncertain, but also the avenues of promotion would be reduced. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that it is competent for the 1st respondent to transfer the employees of one temple to another, under Section 39 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”). It is also their case that the interests of the petitioner, be it in the context of payment of salary, or promotion are amply protected. A Division Bench of this Court upheld the power of the 1st respondent under Section 39 of the Act, to effect transfer of employees from one institution to another. Further, Section 39 of the Act does not maintain any distinction between the temples belonging to one category or the other. It is, no doubt, true that the temple in which the petitioner was appointed is the one, under category 6(a), in view of its higher income and the one, to which he is transferred is classified as 6(c). However, the avenues of promotion of the petitioner are not at all effected. The reason is that his seniority and other benefits are always maintained in the parent institution and as and when the petitioner becomes ripe for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, necessary arrangement has to be made by the first respondent. Similarly, irrespective of the place where the petitioner is working, he has to be extended the emoluments, attached to the post. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, but directing that the transfer of the petitioner shall be without prejudice to his rights of promotion, or to be paid the salary regularly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ