IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14619 of 2008 Between: G.Rajendranath Goud S/o.Late Sri Jagannath Goud Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.1-8-497/3, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 Vigilance Officer, Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Ashok Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 5 Sri.N.Satyanarayana Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam Temple, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.C2/15628/2008 dt. 25.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 8, 35 (1), 57 (2) (a) of Act 30 of 1987 and pass sch other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.GOVIND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 14619 of 2008 ORDER: The extension of regular pay scales to an auto driver (fifth respondent) of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Chikkadpally, is put in issue by the petitioner-Trustee. Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of the Court to Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) to contend that the power to make appointments vests only in the Executive Officer and that the Commissioner had no authority to make any appointments independently without the Executive Officer’s consent, and that the Commissioner had, in several other cases, made appointments independently without even a request for such appointments by the Executive Officer. Section 35 of the Act would lend support to the submission made by Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, but, since such appointments are not in issue in the present writ petition, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine this contention in the case on hand. Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would state that, in the case on hand, the impugned order under challenge does not relate to an appointment, but merely extension of regular pay scales to an employee appointed seven years prior to the date of the impugned order, albeit, on contractual basis. Learned counsel would further contend that all this hue and cry by the petitioner is for payment of a measly sum of Rs.680/- in addition to what was being paid earlier to the fifth respondent. Suffice to note that, under Section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the petitioner-Trustee is required to prepare a budget making adequate provision for the due maintenance of the object of the institution and the proper performance of and the remuneration for, the services therein, including the dittam for the time being in force. The proviso to Section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Act reads thus: “Provided that the salaries of the religious and secular establishment shall not exceed thirty days per centum of its annual income calculated under Section 65.” It is evident therefrom that salaries payable to employees of religious and secular establishment shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65. Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would agree that the proviso has, indeed, been violated with respect to the subject temple for the past several years. The contention, however, is with regards who is responsible for such violation. Sri K.Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the said violation had occurred because of the orders passed by the Commissioner from time to time. On the other hand, both the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, and Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would contend to the contrary and state that the petitioner-Trustee had resorted to favourable treatment in favour of certain other employees which had resulted in non-adherence to the proviso. These are, however, not matters for this Court to examine in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All parties are in agreement that it is the Commissioner, Endowments, (first respondent), who is the competent authority to ensure that the requirement of the proviso to Section 57(2)(a)(i) is adhered to. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met if the first respondent is directed to examine the budget submitted by the petitioner and take all necessary and further steps to ensure that the requirement of the proviso to Section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Act is strictly adhered to. Since allegations and counter allegations are made across the bar, I consider it appropriate to permit both the petitioner-Trustee and the fifth respondent to file detailed representations of the violations, and the cause for such violations, to the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall consider the said representation and take all the necessary steps required to ensure adherence to the proviso to Section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Act. He shall pass a reasoned order in this regard and communicate the same both to the petitioner and to the fifth respondent. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed and communicated shall be completed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending final decision being taken, status quo shall be maintained as on today with regards extension of pay scales to the fifth respondent. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:03-12-2008 usd