Allowed

Ch. Sai Babu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Dec 2011WP/32512/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the authorities' failure to repatriate him to his parent temple and pay salary arrears. The Court directed the Commissioner of Endowments to pass appropriate orders on the repatriation issue and salary payment within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent (Commissioner of Endowments) directed to pass appropriate orders on the issue of repatriation and payment of salary within two weeks.

Ch. Sai Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 32512 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch. Sai Babu … Petitioner V/s

¶8

The Government of A.P. Represented by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue (Endowments) Department Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Sudheer Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Endowments Sri Kesava Rao Basala For Sri VTM Prasad SC for Endowments Ranga Reddy District

¶10

The Court made the following : Order follows next page

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 32512 OF 2011

¶13

O R D E R :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶15

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not repatriating the petitioner to his parent institution-fifth respondent temple, in not paying the salary to the petitioner since February 2011 till date as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith repatriate the petitioner to his parent institution and to pay all the arrears of salary to the petitioner.

¶16

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Record Assistant in the fifth respondent, namely, Sri Gokameswara Swamy Temple. By Proceedings RC.No. B2/383/95, Adm., dated 19-1-1995, the third respondent transferred the petitioner to Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple, Kadiyam, East Godavari district. Thereafter, the third respondent through Proceedings No. B2/2426/2006, dated 25-04-2006 transferred the

¶17

petitioner to the fourth respondent, namely Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy Temple, Bhavadevarapalli, Nagayalanka Mandal, Krishna district. Since then the petitioner has been working in the fourth respondent-temple. While things stood thus, the first respondent issued Memo.No. 47833/End.I (1)/2011, dated 18-1-2011 providing guidelines/instructions for working out the establishment charges in all the temples under the control of Endowment Department. The said memo also contain instruction No.4 wherein the employees working on deputation/transfer from other than the cadre of such temples may be repatriated to their parent institutions and in case if their services are required, their salary expenditure shall be borne by their respective parent-institution. Pursuant to the said memo, the Inspector of Endowments Department, Krishna at Machilipatnam, addressed a letter Rc.No. 198/2011, dated nil to the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to transfer the petitioner to his parent-institution, namely, Sri Gokameswara Swamy Temple, which is parent institution by considering his representation. Pursuant thereto by letter Rc.No. B2/6663/2011, dated 16-7-2011 the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments for effecting the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent institution. The matter is pending on the file of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. While submitting that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada is the competent authority under law for effecting repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department pursuant to the

¶18

Government Memo dated 18-1-2011 but instead of doing so, the third respondent addressed the second respondent for effecting the transfer. However, the matter is pending on the file of second respondent i.e., the Commissioner of Endowments.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid salary from February 2011 till date. Therefore, the petitioner is facing untold hardship to maintain himself and his family at a subsistence level. Therefore, he submits that necessary direction may be given to the concerned authorities.

¶20

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submit that as per the record made available to the court by the petitioner, the issue of repatriation of the petitioner from the fourth respondent to the fifth respondent is pending on the file of second respondent, which is clear from the letter dated 16-7-20911 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to the Commissioner of Endowments. Therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the issue of repatriation pursuant to the letter addressed by the third respondent.

¶21

6. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Record Assistant in the fourth respondent-temple, whereas he belongs to fifth respondent-temple, which is his parent-institution. As per the Government Memo, dated 08-01-2011 the issue of repatriation has to be considered by

¶22

the parent department. Therefore, the Inspector of Endowments Department recommended his repatriation to the third respondent. The third respondent instead of passing orders of repatriation, addressed a letter to the second respondent on 16-7-2011. As there are no disputed questions of fact, as per the Government Memo dated 08-01-2011, an employee is entitled to be considered for repatriation to his parent department. In the instant case, the petitioner is working as Record Assistant in the fourth respondent-temple whereas the fifth respondent is his parent-institution and the issue of repatriation is pending before the second respondent. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law on the issue of repatriation and payment of salary to the petitioner pursuant to the letter addressed by the third respondent dated 16-7-2011, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶23

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶24

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 12-12-2011 I s L

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 32512 OF 2011

¶27

CIRCULATION NO. DATE 12-12-2011 COURT MASTER : I s L Computer No. 43.

Ch. Sai Babu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Sai Babu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Mohd. Abdul Razzak

J.L.Srinivas Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Syed Moinuddin Hussain

B. Mohan Murali Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences

Palagada. Narasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Ch. Lakshmana Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal