IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 158 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/08/2008 in WP NO : 4992 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Executive Officer, Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M. Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Venkata Seshaiah R/o. Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Governemnt of A.P., Tilak Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 158 of 2009 Judgment: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The Executive Officer of Sri Bhramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District, who is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition filed the present appeal against the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4992 of 2002, dated 28.8.2008. According to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, his family was declared as Hereditary Archakas for the life time pursuant to the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif Court, Kurnool in O.S. No. 29 of 1964. The 1st respondent claims to have inherited the Hereditary Archakatvam from his father along with his junior paternal uncle and consequent on the death of his junior paternal uncle, his cousin, Sri M. Somasundara Sarma assumed office as hereditary archaka as his deputy and the Commissioner of Endowments also granted permission to him to perform Archakatvam service through proceedings dated 27.6.1977 as the 1st respondent was a Central Government servant. Subsequent to his retirement, the 1st respondent assumed charge as Pradhana Archaka in the year 1991 after the death of his cousin brother, who worked as Pradhana Archaka till his death. It is stated that in the capacity of Pradhana Archaka, the 1st respondent was having custody of certain gold ornaments of the deity. While so, to his surprise, the Executive Officer of the appellant-Devasthanam has issued proceedings dated 23.5.1996 directing him to handover the jewellery of the deity to the devasthanam, as he was no more in the service of the devasthanam. Assailing the said order, the 1st respondent seemed to have filed Writ Petition No. 11645 of 1996 before this Court and also on the ground that he was not paid any remuneration. A learned single judge of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition through order dated 21.12.2000, directing the 1st respondent to make a representation to the 2nd respondent herein requesting to grant all benefits, for which he was entitled to, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting him to continue him as Pradhana Archaka on par with similarly situated hereditary Archakas of temples at Srikalahasti. He also requested the 2nd respondent to pay him all the benefits from 4.10.1991 to 31.5.1996 during which period he worked as Pradahana Archaka along with the arrears, as given to his brother late M. Somasundara Sarma keeping in view the judgment of A.S. Narayan Deekshitulu vs. State of A.P. ([1]). As no action was taken on the said representation, he appears to have filed Contempt Case No. 170 of 2002, pursuant to which, the 2nd respondent issued the proceedings dated 5.3.2002 rejecting his representation. Challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting his representation dated 30.12.2000 and in denying him the legitimate benefits due to him in respect of the office of Pradhana Archaka in the appellant Devasthanam as arbitrary, illegal; to direct the official respondents to allow him to discharge the functions of the office of Pradhana Archaka in the appellant-Devasthanam; and to pay him remuneration from 4.10.1991 onwards along with the arrears and all other benefits as per the scheme formulated by the State in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court in Narayana Deekshitulu cited above, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition, impugned in this appeal. While opposing the contentions of the 1st respondent, the appellant filed counter affidavit before the learned single Judge, admitting about the fact that the family of the 1st respondent was declared as Hereditary Archakas of the appellant-Devasthanam pursuant to the judgment in O.S. No.29 of 1964. It is also stated that Sri Medavaram Subbaramaiah performed Archakatvam on behalf of the Medavaram family till his death and thereafter, orders were issued permitting Sri M. Somasudara Sarma to assume charge as Hereditary Archaka of the devasthanam on due consideration of the acceptance given by the 1st respondent and Sri M. Subramanyam, the elder son of Late M. Subbaramaiah and he was also extended the time scale with all usual allowances. Subsequent to the demise of M. Somasundara Sarma on 4.10.1991, the 1st respondent was allowed to perform Archakatvam service in the appellant-Devasthanam and to perform the duties subject to the outcome of the cases, which are pending before the Supreme Court. It is stated that subsequently the Supreme Court through its judgment dated 17.1.1996, has upheld the validity of the amendments made to the Act, pursuant to which, the appellant-Devasthanam issued the letter dated 23.5.1996 asking the 1st respondent to handover charge of gold and silver articles, which are in his possession. It is further stated that pursuant to the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11645 of 1996, an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month from 4.10.1991 to 23.5.1996 was paid after deducting the amounts payable by him to the Devasthanam towards residential quarter rent etc. The counter further states that 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 8.10.1997 which is only in respect of the hereditary Archakas or servants, who hold the office and who were rendering service as on the commencement of the Act 30/1987 and also for other employees and since the 1st respondent did not render any archakatvam as on 23.5.1987, the said G.O. does not apply to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is not entitled to new pay scales as he had already crossed the age of superannuation prescribed for the religious staff. Lastly, it is stated that as the 1st respondent is drawing pension from the Central Government, he is not entitled to claim the pension once again from the State Government. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended before the learned single Judge that though the 1st respondent was directed to deliver ornaments of the deity, there was no order of removal or retirement passed against the 1st respondent by the authorities and, therefore, he shall be deemed to be continued in service as per Section 34 of the Act. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Department contended before the learned single Judge stating that the 1st respondent is a retired employee and he requested the appellant Devasthanam to permit him to perform the duties of Archakatvam service and accordingly he was permitted to perform Archakatvam. He further contended that as per the interim order dated 4.7.1997 of this court passed in W.P.M.P. No. 2408 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 11645 of 1996, he was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1500/- per month for the period for which he worked and on his crossing the age of superannuation of 65 years, he was asked not to attend duty. He further stated that as the post of Hereditary archaka was abolished by virtue of Act 30/1987, the 1st respondent was not entitled to claim any hereditary right to continue archakatvam service. The learned single judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the relevant provisions of the Act, passed the impugned order allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order of the appellant dated 23.5.1996 and directed the authorities to reinstate the 1st respondent into service forthwith to the post in which he worked previously. It was further observed that the 1st respondent was entitled to remuneration at Rs. 1500/- per month from 1.6.1996 till his pay, if any, is fixed depending upon the qualifications including passing of archaka tests and eligibility to continue in service. He was also directed to be paid the arrears of salary at Rs.1500/- per month from 1.6.1996 till the date of passing of the impugned order in the writ petition and was directed to be paid the same salary until further orders that would be passed by the concerned authorities. So far as the claim of the 1st respondent with regard to pension is concerned, the learned single judge held that as 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, the 1st respondent is not entitled to any pension. Aggrieved, the appellant- Devasthanam filed the present appeal. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the devasthanam contended that the appointment of the 1st respondent was purely on ad hoc basis and there is no time scale of pay attached to the post of archakatvam. He further contended that since the 1st respondent crossed the age of 65 years, i.e., which is the age of superannuation, as per the provisions of Act 30/1987, he is not entitled to be continued in service beyond the period of superannuation. In support of this contention, he also relied on a memo dated 19.11.2001 issued by the State Government whereunder the Government prescribed 65 years as the age for superannuation in respect of religious staff. He therefore contended that the learned single judge without taking all these aspects into consideration erroneously ordered for reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service. He, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and stated that the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. There is no dispute about the fact that the family members of the 1st respondent were recognized as Hereditary Archakas of the appellant- devasthanam by virtue of the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Kurnool in O.S No.29 of 1964. There is also no dispute about the fact that one Medavaram Subbaramaiah performed Archakatvam on behalf of their family till his death on 20.6.1975 and thereafter conditional orders were issued to his son, Sri Somasundara Sarma permitting him to assume charge as hereditary archaka in due consideration of the consent letters given by the 1st respondent and one M. Subramanyam, eldest son of late M. Subbaramaiah by extending the time scale with usual allowances. It is also evident from the record that after the death of the said Somasundara Sarma on 4.10.1991, the 1st respondent was allowed to perform Archakatvam by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, which was ratified by the 1st respondent subject to finalisation of the cases pending before the Supreme Court. However, pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court on 17.1.1996, the Executive Officer issued a memo dated 23.5.1996, impugned in the writ petition, asking the 1st respondent to handover the charge of gold and silver articles of the deity, which are in his custody to the appellant. Assailing the said action, the 1st respondent has approached this Court in W.P. No. 11645 of 1997 and through order dated 4.7.1997, this Court initially directed the Executive Officer to pay the 1st respondent consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month for the period from 4.10.1991 to 31.5.1996, pursuant to which, the 1st respondent was paid a sum of Rs.63,180/-, being the remuneration for the said period after deducting the amounts payable to the Devasthanam towards the rent of the residential quarter. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to make a representation to the 2nd respondent for appropriate orders. Accordingly, the 1st respondent made a representation to the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent cannot be continued in service beyond 65 years and since the 1st respondent crossed the age of 66 years, he is not entitled to continue. As regards pension, the 2nd respondent has observed that since the 1st respondent has been drawing pension as an ex-employee of the Central Government, he cannot claim pension for the second time as Archaka of the appellant-devasthanam. One more important factor is that though the 1st respondent specifically contended before the learned single judge as well as before us that he has been appointed as Pradhana Archaka, no proceedings have been filed to substantiate his claim. That apart, through order dated 23.5.1996, though the Executive Officer asked the 1st respondent to handover charge of the gold and silver articles, the order does not reflect the reason as to why he was asked to handover those articles and whether he was removed or retired from service, in the absence of which, it has to be assumed that the 1st respondent shall be deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Further, on a perusal of the memo dated 19.11.2001 of the State Government, which was issued as a clarification to G.O Ms. No. 888, dated 8.12.2000, it is seen that the State Government has clarified that the age of superannuation in respect of ultharal services is 65 years in respect of religious staff, who were in service before issue of the Government Orders in G.O. Ms. No.888, dated 8.12.2000, and, the superannuation age of 58 years referred to in the said G.O. would apply to those who entered into service after issue of the said G.O. Though the order dated 23.5.1996 of the appellant does not say that the 1st respondent was asked to retire through the said proceeding, in view of the fact that there is no material on record to show that the 1st respondent was continued as Archaka beyond 1996 and in view of the fact that the 1st respondent has been asked to handover the charge of gold and silver articles through proceeding dated 23.5.1996, it has to be held that he shall be deemed to have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In any event, in view of the memo dated 19.11.2001 issued by the Government clarifying that the minimum age of superannuation in respect of Ultharai services is 65 years and since the 1st respondent has crossed 65 years long back, the learned single Judge is not justified in issuing a direction to the authorities to reinstate him into service with immediate effect. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge issuing various directions to the authorities, including the direction to reinstate the 1st respondent into service forthwith cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. It is brought on record that the 1st respondent has been paid arrears of salary from 4.10.1991 to 31.5.1996. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled for any further relief more than what has already been granted. As regards the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the 1st respondent is not entitled to any pension since there is no express provision under Act 30/1987, we are entirely in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and the same needs no interference. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge except to the extent indicated above is set aside. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 24th June, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb [1] (1996) 6 SCC 548