Partly allowed

Syamala Somasekhar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2022WP/4553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court declared illegal the respondent government's failure to approve cadre strength for a temple despite multiple proposals. The petitioners are temple employees; the court directed the government to sanction the cadre strength within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, the finding that the negligence was illegal was confirmed, and the 2nd respondent was directed to approve the temple cadre strength and other related orders within eight week

Syamala Somasekhar Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4553 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶5

“ to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents especially 2^nd Respondent in not approving the cadre strength of the 4^th Respondent temple despite positive proposals of the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents requesting the 2^nd Respondent vide Lr.No.B4/8243/2018/Adm., Dated 05.09.2019 to do so and not paying arrears of salaries to petitioners from July 2018 to till date, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the payment of wages Act 1936 and violative of principles of natural justice Article 19, 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to take action for approval of the cadre strength to the 4^th Respondent temple as requested by the 3^rd and 4th Respondents vide Lr.NoB4/8243/2018/Adm., dated 05.09.2019 and to grant such other or further orders……. ”

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that one S.Chengarayulu is the one of the members of founder family of the 4^th respondent temple. In the year 2005, temple was renovated and started operating with the employees appointed by the board of trustees. In the year 2011 land belonging to temple was acquired by the National Highway Authorities to get compensation from the Government authorities temple registered under the Endowment Act. Afterwards the then 3^rd respondent has issued proceedings vide Proc.No.B4/921/ 2011/Adm., dated 30.06.2011 by granting sanction for constitution of non-hereditary Trust Board consists of three

¶7

¶8

members and one ex-officio member. On 09.07.2011, special meeting was held convened by the inspector, Endowments and one S.Chengarayulu was the elected Chairman to the 4^th respondent temple to that effect 3^rd respondent has recorded his post vide D.Dis.No.B4/921/2011/Adm, dated 18.08.2011.

¶9

It is further stated that on the repeated requests made by the petitioners to the Executive Officer of the 4^th respondent temple for payment of salaries from the month of July 2018 to till date through letter dated 30.09.2018 and the E.O. requested the 3^rd respondent for approval of cadre strength to enable him to disburse the pending salaries. On receipt of the same, vide Memo No.B4/8243/2018-I/admn., dated 23.10.2018 has directed the Executive Officer of 4^th respondent temple to furnish the work load details of the administrative staff of the temple for necessary action. Further, the 3^rd respondent though Memo No.B4/8243/20182/adm., dated 23.10.2018 also directed the ex-chairman S.Chengarayulu has called for explanation for enhancing salaries of the staff without obtaining permission of post sanctioned orders from the competent authorities. On 16.11.2018 ex-chairman has submitted detailed explanation explaining the profits and assets of the temple and also raised the issue with regard to salaries to be paid to employees. It is relevant to state that on 06.08.2019 present Chairman of the 4^th Respondent temple also addressed a letter to the 3^rd respondent for sanction of salaries to staff.

¶10

¶11

It is further stated that the petitioners also sent representation dated 25.10.2019 to the respondents requesting to pay salaries from July 2018 to September 2019. In reply to that 3^rd Respondent vide Memo No.B4/9427/ 2019/Adm, dated 25.11.2019 has intimated that he has submitted proposal for approval cadre strength and his office has submitted report to the 2^nd Respondent and orders are awaited. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶12

Counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the Board of Trustees are not competent to appoint any person to the 4^th respondent temple since it is a registered religious institution governed by the Act 30/1987. The alleged employment of the petitioners is null and void. The petitioners were paid remuneration as daily labour without any budget sanction and approval by the 2^nd respondent, therefore the said employment is illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 35 of Act 30/1987. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim regularization of their service as employees of 4^th respondent temple.

¶13

Since the very appointment of the petitioners is in violation of procedure contemplated under Act 30/1987 and the alleged appointment is without approved cadre strength and budget provision by the competent authority as contemplated under Section 33 of Act 30/1987, the Executive Officer of the 4^th respondent temple not paid any salary to the petitioners from 01.07.2018 onwards. It is further stated that

¶14

¶15

the 3^rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent, but so far no orders were received from the 2^nd respondent, therefore no amount was paid to the petitioners. Even till today there is no approved cadre strength for appointment of Junior Assistant and Record Assistant posts in the 4^th respondent temple. The petitioners issued legal notice dated 25.10.2019 for which the 4^th respondent issued suitable reply dated 11.11.2019. The petitioners are close relatives of Ex-Chairman of Board of Trustees of the 4^th respondent temple. The petitioners never performed any duties in the 4^th respondent temple but misusing the office, the Ex-Chairman of Board Trustees of 4^th respondent temple created records as if the petitioners are employees of the 4^th respondent and drawn salary every month up to 01.07.2018. Absolutely there are no merits in the case of the petitioners and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

¶17

On hearing, this Court observed that the 1^st petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant and the 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the 4^th respondent temple. The petitioners have completed 8 years of service without any complaint from any corner. Their appointments were strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 6(b) of the Endowment Act and in

¶18

¶19

exercise of the powers vested in Section 35 of A.P. Endowments Act. It is relevant to state that even though the 3^rd respondent had accorded permission vide Memo No.B4/3498/2018/adm, dated 27.07.2018 for withdrawal of funds from the bank account of the 4^th respondent to meet expenditure and for salaries, they have not paid salaries. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners sent representation dated 25.10.2019 to the respondents to pay salaries. But, as seen from the Memo dated 25.11.2019, it clearly establishes that the 3^rd respondent has accorded withdrawl permission subject to post sanction orders and specific permission of the competent authority. The same has been brought to the notice of the through the Executive Officer of the subject temple after appointing by the Department and hence the salaries of Junior Assistant and Record Assistant were stopped by the Executive Officer of the subject temple and he submitted proposal for approval of cadre strength.

¶20

In view of the above, this Court observed that even though the 3^rd respondent accorded permission for withdrawl of the salaries the concerned authorities have not passed any orders. It clearly establishes the laches on the part of the respondents concerned.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the submissions made by both the counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the 2^nd respondent in not approving the cadre strength of the 4^th

¶22

¶23

respondent temple despite positive proposals of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents requesting the 2^nd respondent vide Lr.No.B4/8243/2018/Adm. dated 5.9.2019 and not paying arrears of salaries to petitioners from July 2018 to till date, declared as illegal. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to take action for approval of the cadre strength to the 4^th respondent temple as requested by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents vide letter dated 05.09.2019. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶26

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶27

Date : 08-07-2022 Gvl

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.4553 of 2020

¶31

Date : 08.07.2022

¶32

Gvl

¶33

Syamala Somasekhar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamala Somasekhar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Madhusudhana Rao Vs State of Ap

P. Nagabushana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ratna Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.v.Ramana Raju, Vs The State of Ara Pradesh

M.Venkataramanaiah, Vs The District Educational Officer

K Narasimha Murthy Vs the Eastern Power