Disposed

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah, v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam

Telangana HC13 Aug 2004WP/14334/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging discrimination in promotion and regularization of a temple servant. The court directed the Commissioner of Endowments to consider the petitioner's representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion and regularization within two months.

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 14334 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah,

¶9

S/o Laxminarayana, R/o Vahanala Veedhi, Opp: Satya Deva Type Institute,

¶10

Annavaram, East Godavari District.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam,

¶14

Rep. by its Executive Officer, Annavaram, East Godavari District. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Govt. of A.P.,

¶15

Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 Indraganti Rama Sastry,

¶16

R/o Annavaram, East Godavari District. 4 Vedula Sankara Rao, R/o Annavaram, East Godavari District. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties).

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not extending regular time scale attached to the post of Paricharika to the petitioner, while extending the said benefits to the respondents 3 and 4 herein which are juniors to the petitioner in

¶19

the cadre of Paricharika and on the other hand promoting respondents 3 and 4 herein as archakas without finalizing the seniority of religious office holders of the 1st respondent institution as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory ,accommodative and violative or principles of natural justice under Art. 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner to the time scale of Rs.2870/- in R.S.P. 1999,

¶20

For the Petitioner: MR.B.V.RAM NARESH KUMAR, Advocate.

¶21

For the Respondent No.1: Smt. N. Indrani, SC for Endowments Temple Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

W.P.No.14334 of 2004

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petitioner claims that he is working as a Paricharika in the 1^st respondenttemple from the year, 1995 on a daily wage of Rs.15/- and he has been working as such un-interruptedly till date. The petitioner contended that the 2^nd respondent approved the action of the 1^st respondent in having engaged the services of the petitioner through the order dated 27-02-2003. The further contention of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent promoted three Paricharikas to the cadre of Archakas and ultimately, the total work load of the paricharikas has to be attended by the petitioner.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is senior to the respondents 3 and 4, he was ignored for promotion as Archaka and the respondents 3 and 4 are extended the benefit by showing discrimination towards him. The petitioner further submits that he requested the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.261 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 20-05-2002 and also G.O.Ms.No.720 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 20-11-2001. The petitioner further submits that he made a latest representation on 13-09-2003 to consider his request.

¶27

In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the Government Orders mentioned above and pass appropriate orders as per the

¶28

Rules and the Government Orders, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶29

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶30

Dr.G. Yethirajulu, J

¶31

13^th August, 2004.

¶32

Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o.

¶33

Isn/tsy

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Govt. of A.P., Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the G.P. for Endowments, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.). 4. Two CD Copies.

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah, v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prayaga Satya Venkata Triyambaka Janaki Ramaiah, v. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam

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

S. Bhaskar, Vs The Senior Deputy Director General (Electrical) BSNL

L.Mallesham Vs Depot Manager

Mr. B. Nageswara Rao S/o Late B. Nagamanaidu Vs The Senior Deputy Director General (Electrical)

Mr. Md. Kaleem, Vs The Registering Authority

Smt.B.Mangayamma, Vs Apsrtc rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing

Ch. V.R.N. Sastry, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour