Disposed

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. v. The State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2023WP/11981/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the disengagement of a temple attender employed for 33 years. Directing respondents not to disturb the petitioner until retirement, conditional on eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to disturb the petitioner till the date of his retirement with all consequential benefits if eligible.

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. Vs The… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11981 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent/Regional Joint Commissioner in directing disengagement of the petitioner on the ground of Religion after extracting work for about 33 years vide Proc in R. C.No. A3/1639/1511(a) Dated 1032015 and the consequential proceedings of E.0 in Rc. No. NiI/2015 Dated 14-04-2015 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to Regulations, unconstitutional without jurisdiction and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner.”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Attender in the year 1982 in one of the Pancharamas called Ksheeraramam at Palakol, West Godavari District and working as such since 33 years without any blemish. While so, the Regional Joint Commissioner has issued orders vide

¶7

¶8

Rc.No. A3/1639/15-11(a) dated 10.03.2015 directing the EO of the temple to dis-engage the services of the petitioner in view of the proviso to Act 30/87 and service Rules framed under Rule 3 in G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. The EO, issued orders in Rc.No. Nil/2015, dated 14.10.2015 disengaging the services of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶9

At the time of admission of this writ petition on 23.04.2015, this Court has passed the following interim order:-

¶10

“There shall be interim suspension as prayed for, in as much as the petitioner is rendering service nearly from three decades in that temple.”

¶11

The 4^th respondent has filed counter along with vacate stay petition stating that the 3^rd respondent being the competent authority has issued proceedings in Rc.No. A3/1639/15-11(a) dated 10.03.2015 directing the 4^th respondent to issue orders terminating the services of the petitioner as he belongs to muslim community. However, learned Government Pleader for Endowments on oral instructions have submitted that in pursuance of the interim

¶12

¶13

orders granted by this Court on 23.04.2015, the petitioner is continuing in service and he is about to retire from service within one year. Learned Government Pleader has also given an undertaking that his service would be continued till his retirement.

¶14

In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner till the date of his retirement with all consequential benefits, if he is otherwise eligible, qualified, suitable and comes within the zone of consideration as per the rules. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶17

Date : 23.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶18

¶19

221

¶20

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶21

(Disposed of)

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.11981 OF 2015

¶23

Date: 23.03.2023

¶24

PSR/KBS

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. 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

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. Vs the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

R Jagadeesan Vs the State of Ap

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.V.V. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Narayana Murthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal