IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5203 of 1999 Between: M.Lalaiah Swamy, Kusnur Village, Raikode, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, Ranga Reddy District and Medak Dist., Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 The Chairman, Sri Parameswaraswamy Temple, Kusunur Village, Raikode Mandal, Medak District. .....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 call for the records and issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to formulate a scheme and prescribe the emoluments to the Petitioner's services as ARchaka of Sri Parameswara Swamy Temple, Kusunur Village, Raikode Mandal, Medak District and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pay such emoluments as per the scheme and the emoluments prescribed by the 1st respondent and pass such further or other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 5203 of 1999 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to formulate a scheme and prescribe the emoluments to the petitioner's services as Archaka of Sri Parameswara Swamy Temple, Kusunur Village, Raikode Mandal, Medak District and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to pay such emoluments as per the scheme and the emoluments prescribed by the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is a case of the petitioner that he was an Archaka and his father was the Pradhana Archaka of “Sri Parameswara Swamy Temple” situated at Kusnur Village, Raikode Mandal, Medak District. The said temple is a registered temple under the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religion Endowments Act. The Temple was not paying salary to his father. Therefore, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting to pay the salary and increase the salary of the father of petitioner as well. In response to the representation, the 2nd respondent obtained inspection report from the Temple Inspector and on that basis, the proceedings No.B/48/1989, dated 24.1.1989 was issued, whereunder the Chairman of the 3rd respondent of the said Sri Parameswara Swamy Temple is directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per month to the petitioner’s father and a sum of Rs.50/- towards the expenses of Pooja material. However, the 3rd respondent paid the same for one year i.e., 1989-90. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Rc.No.B/347/90, dated 20.2.1990, directed the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.60/- per month w.e.f 1.4.1984 as contingent allowance for taking care of the contingent duties of the Temple, which fact was established by the report of the Inspector of Endowments Department. But the 3rd respondent failed to pay the same to the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 12.3.1990 to the 2nd respondent and who issued the proceedings No.B/347/1990, dated 12.3.1990, directing the 3rd respondent to pay 50% of the arrears amount to his father immediately and remaining 50% after the amount is released in the next month. The said arrangement was agreed by the 3rd respondent in the presence of the 2nd respondent. But the 3rd respondent did not pay the salary to his father from the year 1990 to till date. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.9.1991, directed the Executive Oﬃcer of the 3rd respondent Temple to pay the contingent allowance of Rs.60/- per month along with arrears to his father, right from his father joining duty to till date and report compliance. But for the reasons best known to the 3rd respondent and its Executive Oﬃcer, the said contingent allowance was not paid to his father. In the year 1994, the father of the petitioner died and as the petitioner is only legal heir to his father, he is entitled to receive the arrears and he has been working as an Archaka, while his father being a Pradhana Archaka. Consequent to the death of his father in the year 1994, he became the sole Archaka without taking assistance from anybody and he continued to be the Archaka of that Temple, and performing Nitya- Naivedhyam, Nitya Deeparadhana, Pooja etc., in the 3rd respondent Temple. But he was not paid the remuneration from 1994. Hence the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner being paid the remuneration by the 3rd respondent as per the orders of the 2nd respondent or he has passed any order on the representation made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that pending the writ petition, the Government has issued the proceedings dated 20.3.2002 contemplating the rules of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 2001. Therefore, he submits that under the rules, basing on the income derives from a particular temple, the wages of the employees employed in the temple will be considered. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner may be considered as per the said rules. Having regard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the averments made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition and also in view of the various proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:- The petitioner is given liberty to make appropriate representation citing the relevant rules under the G.O.Ms.No.208 making his claim before the 2nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on making such claim, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:14.07.2008 mrb