IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21349 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- K.Sambasiva Rao .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Eluru, West Godavari District and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Proceedings Rc.No.B3/1883/2011-9, dated 16.07.2011, issued by respondent No.1 and the consequential fixation of seniority in the seniority list prepared in the said proceedings by counting the seniority of the petitioner from 01.12.1991 instead from 02.06.1990, as illegal and arbitrary and against the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1478 Revenue (Endts.VI) Department, dated 17.11.1986, and the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 in U.O. Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011, and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to count the seniority of the petitioner from 02.06.1990 in the category of Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits flow therefrom including grant of appropriate place in the seniority list, promotion etc. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the existing vacancy at Janardhana Swamy Group Temples, Eluru, West Godavari District on 02.06.1990 with a scale of Rs.910-30-1240- 35-1625 without allowances. After his appointment, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada directed the Executive Officer to pay emoluments as per rules in force from 01.12.1991 only. In view of his appointment with scale, he was drawing the scale of pay of Rs.910/- without allowances from 02.06.1990 till the allowances were granted i.e., upto 30.11.1991. As per proviso to Section 57 (2)(a)(i) of Act 30/87, the salaries of the religious and secular establishments shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65 of Act 30/87. In view of this provision, the scales of pay, which are to be fixed and approved as per rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 are varying from time to time, as the establishment charges shall not exceed thirty percent of the income. Because of this limit of expenditure on the establishment charges, the petitioner was not given allowances, even though he was placed in the scales of Rs.910-1625 at the time of his appointment i.e., 02.06.1990, but subsequently, the same were sanctioned. Therefore, granting of scales or allowances is nothing to do for fixing the seniority in the post of Junior Assistant. While so, respondent No.1 prepared a provisional seniority list vide proceedings, dated 29.03.2011, and called for objections. The name of petitioner was shown at serial No.22 and his date of regularization was shown as 01.12.1991 i.e., the date on which the allowances were granted to him. So, the petitioner filed objections on 07.04.2011, but without considering his objections, respondent No.1 finalized the seniority list on 16.07.2011, wherein the name of petitioner was shown at serial No.25 by considering the date of seniority from 01.12.1991 and not from 02.06.1990. Respondent No.1 also passed rejection order of his objections on 16.07.2011. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was appointed as an L.D.C. in Janardhana Swamy Group Temples on 02.06.1990, his seniority was taken into consideration with effect from 01.12.1991 only and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Government Pleader for respondents contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, by virtue of proceedings, dated 26.11.1991, directed the Executive Officer to pay the emoluments as per rules in force with effect from 01.12.1991 and therefore, the respondents have rightly fixed the seniority of the petitioner and there is no illegality in passing the impugned order. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the date of appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of fixing seniority. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the seniority of the petitioner was taken into consideration from 01.12.1991, which is the date taken for granting the Pay Revision Commission Scale with effect from 01.12.1991. As the petitioner was admittedly appointed on 02.06.1990 as L.D.C. in the existing vacancy at Janardhana Swamy Group Temples, Eluru without allowances in the pay scale of 910-30-1240-35-1625, that date has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the seniority. However, the respondents have taken into consideration the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 26.11.1991, whereunder the Executive Officer was directed to pay the emoluments as per the rules in force from 01.12.1991 only. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the appointment came into effect from the date of his initial appointment and not from the date on which the emoluments were paid. The date when he was appointed on a substantive post in a particular pay scale is the relevant date for the purpose of determining the seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to take note of the proceedings of the Executive Officer, dated 02.06.1990, as the basis for determining the seniority of the petitioner and place him accordingly in the seniority list. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21349 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD