Disposed

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024WP/1716/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Sambhavana Archaka of TTD challenged his oral exclusion from duties without notice or order, alleging violation of the A.P. Endowments Act and TTD Service Regulations. Without touching the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing him to file a representation within ten days, with respondents to pass reasoned orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation within ten days; respondents to pass reasoned orders with hearing within two months.

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu, Vs the… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1716 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu, S/o. Vedantham Desikacharyulu, Aged about 35 years, Occ; Archaka, R/o. D.No.6-2-238, Manchalavari Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Guntur District.

¶11

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, Chittoor^District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in not allowing the petitioner as a Archaka of the temples^{attachedtothe2} nd respondent without any notice or order which is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and also violation of A.P. Char table and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Rules therein and Service Regulations of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and consequently directed the petitioner to perform his duties as a Archaka in the temple 3 attached to the 2^'^ respondent.

i fi'

lA NO: 1 OF 2090

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Archaka of the temples attached to the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3; GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A. SUMANTH, SC FOR TTD The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

APHC010009912020

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

[3310]

¶23

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 1716/2020

¶27

Between:

¶28

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu ...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.CH VENKAT RAMAN

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶34

1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD)

¶35

The Court made the following order:

¶36

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^Constitution of India

¶37

seeking the following relief:

¶38

“ to issue a writ, order or direction more particuiariy^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action^ofthe respondent in not allowing the petitioner as a Archaka^of the temples attached to the 2"^ respondent without^any notice or order which is illegal, arbitrary against the principles of natural justice and also violation of A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Rules therein and Service Regulations of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and consequently directed the petitioner to perform his^dutiesas a Archaka in the temples attached to the 2"’^ respondent...”

¶39

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner belongs to the Brahmana Community. Father of the petitioner is also an Archaka. He completed the examinations of Archaka, Pravesa, Vara and Pravara without any remarks. The Commissioner, Endowments issued certificates to that effect. Petitioner has applied for the post of Archaka in the respondent No.2Temple. The respondent No.2 and other officials consider the application of the petitioner vide proceedings Roc.No.TS3/14248/2003, dated 30.08.2003, appointing him as Sambhavana Archaka on monthly Sambhavana basis at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, he joined on 02.09.2003. He worked in the same post for a period of 12 years. While the matter being so on 19.07.2014, the Deputy Executive Officer of the respondent No.2-Temple, without giving any notice or order, orally directed the petitioner not to come to the duties. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour directed the respondent No.2 authorities to submit their remarks. The respondent No.2 submitted remarks stating that the post of Archaka does not fall under the Labour Act and there is no jurisdiction to the Labour Department to interfere with the action of the Management. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr. Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr. A.Sumanth, learned Standing^Counselfor T.T.D for the respondent No.2.

¶40

¶41

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has orally directed him not to attend the duties as Archaka, which is illegal an arbitrary. Hence, requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶42

Whereas, Mr. A.Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for^T.T.Dfor the respondent No.2 basing on the averments made in^{thecountersubmits} that the petitioner is involved in so many civil cases and he is not attending his duties regularly. He further submits that being a Sambhavana Archaka (contract service), the petitioner cannot be treated like a regular employee. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

On hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels,^without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while directing the petitioner to file the representation before the respondents for redressal of his grievance.

¶44

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent^{authoritieswithin} a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to^{considerthesameand} pass appropriate reasoned orders, by giving opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) months^thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if^{any,shallalsostand}

¶47

closed.

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT^GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶50

¶51

Revenue (Endowments) Department, State of

¶52

1. The Principal Secretary Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶53

1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam,^Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶54

District.

¶55

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi, Chittoor

¶56

One CC to Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Sri A. Sumanth, SC for TTD[OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT] 7. Two CCS to GP for Labour, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.^[OUT]

¶59

Three CD Copies.

ssb

high court

DATED:20/1 1/2024

ORDER WP.No.1716 of 2020

¶64

6f AMOfi^
ml-
X 2 3 DEC 20211
^ . Current becuon . A

¶65

disposing of the w.p. without costs

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedantham Sri Vasudeva Bhattachaiyulu, 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

Tammana Venkata Sathi Raju, Kakinada Vs Prl Secy, Endowments Dept, Hyderabad & 3 Others

M.Sudhakar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Rama Rao, S/o. Late Ram Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Hussain Vs the State of Ap

Sree Paravasthu Ajhaghya Manavalla Jeeyar Swamy Vari Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Shaik Salahuddin Sabir Vs The Government of A.P.