Disposed

M. Pardhasaradhi Rao v. Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple

Telangana HC24 Aug 2011WP/23746/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding non-payment of salary due to employment confusion between two temple authorities. Held that 2nd respondent must pass a comprehensive order to resolve ambiguity and confusion to enable salary release. Leave open for petitioner representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to pass comprehensive order within three weeks to resolve employment confusion and release salary.

M. Pardhasaradhi Rao Vs Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Group of Temples, Pasalapudi Village, West Godavari District, on 10.09.1993. Thereafter, he was transferred, as Junior Assistant, to Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple, Tanuku, the 1^st respondent herein. From there, he was transferred/sent on deputation to Sri Daneswari Ammavari Temple at Duvva. Through proceedings, dated 21.01.2010, the 2^nd respondent passed an order directing cancellation of deputation of the petitioner and two other employees, who were working at Sri Daneswari Ammavari Temple at Duvva. The 1^st respondent was shown as the parent-institution of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not paying the salary, though he has reported to duty in compliance with the orders, dated 30.01.2010.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

There is some lack of clarity of in the order dated 21.01.2010. Though the petitioner was the employee of Sri Ramalingeshwara Swamy Group of Temples, Pasalapudi, in the impugned order, it was mentioned that the 1^st respondent is the parent institution. Obviously because of this uncertainty, the 1^st respondent has not released the salary of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was placed under suspension and this Court has passed orders in W.P.No.8180 of

¶7

2010. When so many complications arise, it is difficult to expect the 1^st respondent to straight away release the salary of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent has to look into the matter and pass a comprehensive order, so that the confusion is avoided.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2^nd respondent, pointing out his grievance. The same shall be disposed of by the 2^nd respondent within three weeks from the date of its receipt. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:24.08.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ

M. Pardhasaradhi Rao v. Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Pardhasaradhi Rao v. Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Omar Farooq Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Seshadri Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah Vs Adult Education Welfare Society

Lankapalli Satya Rao Vs The Commissioner and Director

Avuluri Venkata Ramanamma Vs The District Collector and Chairman

Kilari Venkaiah Vs Kilari Venu