Allowed

Udayagiri Venkata Ramanacharyulu v. The Executive Officer

Telangana HC9 Dec 2014WP/36727/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court disposed of a writ petition filed by an Assistant Archaka against his temple committee. The court directed the 1st respondent to implement the salary enhancement order dated 26.07.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent, increasing the salary from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/- per month with arrears within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to implement the proceedings dated 26.07.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and pay salary of Rs.4000/- per month with arrears within six weeks.

Udayagiri Venkata Ramanacharyulu Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.36727 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner submits that he has been working as Assistant Archaka in Sri Malayadri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Malakonda village, Valetivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam district since 16 years of his age i.e., 1992-93 onwards. Initially, he was paid salary of Rs.300/-. A service certificate 19.07.2002 was issued by the Senior Archaka to the effect that the petitioner has been discharging duties as Assistant Archaka since several years and performing the duties honestly. The petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent and made a representation in terms of the Circular No.DPC/52200/2009 dated 23.06.2010 issued by the Office of the Member Secretary, A.P. Dharmika Parishad, Hyderabad for enhancement of the salary and the 2^nd respondent on considering the representation of the petitioner, issued proceedings in Rc.No.B3/24407/ 2011 dated 26.07.2011 enhancing the salary from Rs.1000/- to Rs.4000/- The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent has not been implementing the orders issued by the 2^nd respondent and the petitioner is still being paid only an amount of Rs.1000/- per month.

¶5

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Endowments-respondents. I see absolutely no reason for not implementing the proceedings dated 26.07.2011 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to implement the proceedings dated 26.07.2011 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Endowment Commissioner and pay salary of Rs.4000/- per month with arrears, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Pending

¶7

miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶8

________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 09.12.2014 Note: Furnish CC in one week (BO) BSS

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶10

URGENT

¶11

¶12

WP No.36727 of 2014

¶13

Date: 09.12.2014

¶14

BSS

Udayagiri Venkata Ramanacharyulu v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayagiri Venkata Ramanacharyulu v. The Executive Officer

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

T. Narayana, C 915173, aged 38 years, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Padwal Ravi, Vs Union of India

N a Rao Vs The Apsrtc

N.S. Reddy, Vs Apsrtc

K.v.Lakshmana Charyulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

Venkata Siva Prasad, Vs Chaitanya Grameena Bank