Retrenched Senior Assistant A. Nagaraju filed a writ petition seeking arrears of salary under the 2010 PRC. The court noted the respondent had already sanctioned the relevant pay and increments, holding no cause survived.
Writ petition closed with no order as to costs; miscellaneous pending applications stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33252 OF 2015
Between:
A. Nagaraju, S/o. Subbarayudu, Aged 53 years, Occ: Senior Assistant, Sri Mahanandeeswara Swamy Devasthanam R/o. Mahanandi Post, Nandyal Taluq, Kurnool District.
...PETITIONER
AND
Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Abids Road, Hyderabad.
Mahanandi Temple, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENTS
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, directing the 3rd respondent to pay the arrears in terms of the 2010 PRC from 01.08.2011 to till date by •• consic^ering the representations of the petitioner on 06.07.2012, ,*''^-^6.CH5:;20'13, 01.11.2013, 14.09.2014 and on 24.06.2015 and consequently decide the action of the 3rd respondent in not payingarrearsofsalariesto ’■ prettjoiier as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violationofArticles 14 * • V and 16 of the Constitution of India.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 (WPMP. NO: 42912 OF 20151
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to pay the arrears of salary in terms of 2010 PRC by considering the petitioner representations on 06.07.2012, 26.06.2013, 01.11.2013, 14.09.2014 and on 24.06.20-15, pending disposal oftheWritPetition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing of this Counter Affidavitdated15-12-2022 in W.P.No. 33252 of 2015, in the interest of justice, and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B S N NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondents R1 & R2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents R3: G. RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENT, RAYALASEEMA REGION)
The Court made the following: ORDER
[3333]
►
APHC010768952015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33252/2015
Between;
A. Nagaraju, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.B S N NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
The Court made the following:
s.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India
seeking the following relief:-
“....fo issue a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3^^ respondent to paythearrearsintermsof the 2010 PRC from 01.08.2011 to till date by considering the representations of the petitioner on 06.07.2012, 26.06.2013, 01.11.2013,14.09.2014andon 24.06.2015 and consequently declare the action of the 3"^ respondent in not paying arrears of salaries to petitioner....”
- The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Attender on 16.08.1989 in the respondent No.3 temple and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/935/2004-2/Estt, dated 12.01.2005 by the respondentNo.3 and was also to the post of Senior Assistant vide proceedings in RC.NO.A2/150/2010, dated 30.11.2010.
- While the matter being so, the petitioner was transferred to Sri Bhramarambhika Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Srisailamandheworkedthere for a period of four (04) years and eight (08) months. Thereafter, on 12.10.2011, his services were repatriated to his parent temple by the respondent No.2.
- The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner submitted various representationsdated 06.07.2012 26.06.2013, 01.11.2013, 14.09.2014 and 24.06.2015 to the respondent No.3,
requesting to pay the allowances and arrears as per the 2010 PRC, the respondents have not initiated any action on the said representations. 5. Respondent No.3 has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A2/860/2011, dated 08.06.2018 by which the petitioner was sanctioned RPS 2010 and was also given annual grade increments upto 01.08.2017. One bill is for an amount of Rs.1,38,927/- and the second bill is for an amount of Rs.4,48,654/which were already paid to the petitioner and the same was approved by the State Audit Department, Nandhyal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
SD/- N.NAGAMMA //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT] REGISTRAR SECTlQ^PefT^ICER
To,
HIGH COURT
CS
• ' DATED: 08/08/2024
ORDER
r'
I 0 3 JAN 2025 ^
^ Current Section
®esPATCt^'^
WP.No.33252 of 2015
CLOSING THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS.
/ /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the 3rd respondent to pay arrears of salary in terms of the 2010 PRC given that the petitioner has already been sanctioned related payscale and increments.
Whether the 3rd respondent's inaction on petitions regarding salary arrears was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Nagaraju
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Commissioner, Endowments Department
The Executive Officer, Sri Mahanandeeswara Swamy Devasthanam
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
