HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.6121 of 2004 Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 Between: V. Pasupathi Sastry Dwivedi … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 5 others … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.6121 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to avail the public holidays and weekly holidays on par with other temple employees, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents either to pay remuneration to the petitioner for the service rendered on weekly holidays and public holidays as per the eligibility for the service rendered since he is joining into the service of the respondents or adjust the eligible CGHL leave to his earned leave or extraordinary leave. 2) The petitioner, who is working as Vedaparayana Pandit in 5th respondent-temple, contended that previously he filed W.P.No.16334 of 1991 praying this Court to direct the respondents to pay remuneration towards salary of weekly holidays and public holidays on par with other employees. However, the respondents misrepresented this Court that he was provided with compensatory holidays and other benefits in lieu of the work done by him on holidays and by believing that, this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 20.09.1999. 3) However, the respondents practically did not permit any compensatory holidays in lieu of the service rendered by him on holidays. The 6th respondent through the proceedings dated 12.10.1991 admitted that the services of Archakas and Veda Parayanadars and Purohits would be required by the temple on public holidays. The petitioner was also informed through similar proceedings dated 12.02.1992 and in terms of the said circular, he is entitled to avail 20 days holidays under CGHL. But, the earlier circular reads that he is entitled to avail 25 days holidays under CGHL. Both the instructions are self-contradictory and irreconcilable. He was allowed to avail the compensatory holidays for about one year during 1992-93 with the 6th respondent temple. However, he is deprived of the same in other stations where he rendered his service. The action of the respondents in not permitting him to avail compensatory holidays for the work done on holidays or not given any monetary benefit in lieu thereof is illegal and arbitrary. 4) In the earlier writ petition for the similar relief, this Court passed the following order: “Evidently, the services of Archakas, Vedaparayana Pandits and purohits would be required by the temple on public holidays also. Their absence on Sundays and Public Holidays would certainly cause dislocation of the work, which may hinder the religious ceremonies that are required to be performed everyday in the temple. At any rate, the petitioner and other employees similarly situated like him are provided with compensatory holidays and other benefits in lieu of the work done by them on Sundays and Public Holidays. It is not a fit case requiring any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 5) The third respondent through the counter mentioned that such employees who work on holidays would be granted compensatory leave in lieu of working on holidays. In this particular case, the petitioner is not working on public holidays and weekly holidays. He is availing weekly holidays as well as public holidays. Therefore, the question of granting compensatory leave to him does not arise. Even if the petitioner is a non-secular employee, he is not rendering service to the temple on public holidays and weekly holidays. Hence, he is not entitled for compensatory leave or remuneration. He was availing weekly holidays on every Tuesday instead of Sunday as per the proceedings dated 12.02.1992. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensatory leave as claimed by him. 6) In the light of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.16334 of 1991 and in the light of the submissions made by both parties, I do not find any ground to issue any further instructions to the respondents. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Dr.G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date: 06.02.2008 Isn