Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Saligrama Tirunarayanacharyulu And ... vs The Executive Officer, ... on 30 August, 2012
Author: L.Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L.Narasimha Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7945 OF 2001 30.08.2012 Saligrama Tirunarayanacharyulu and others The Executive Officer, TirumalaTirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.Surendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Learned Standing Counsel for TTD Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Learned Government Pleader for Endowments <Gist: >Head Note: ?Citations: ORDER:
Sri Pattabhi Ramaswamy Temple at Vayalapad, Chittoor District (for short, 'the Temple'), was brought under the purview of Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanam (for short, 'the Devasthanam') through the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.704, Revenue (Endts-III), dated 22.08.1996. The petitioners herein were working as employees of the Temple by the time it was brought under the purview of the Devasthanam. As regards emoluments to be paid to them, there was some uncertainty, and repeated representations were being made. The grievance of the petitioners is that though more than 15 years have elapsed from the date of take over, the respondents did not fix their pay scales and that they are not being paid salaries in terms of G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 08.10.1997. They submit that when a similar situation prevailed in respect of other Temples which were taken over, the employees of such Temples filed W.P.No.5484 of 1990 before this Court and through an order, dated 27.07.1999, this Court directed the Devasthanam and the Government to take steps for regularisation of the services of the employees of the taken over Temples.
The Executive Officer of the Devasthanam filed counter affidavit. The fact that the Temple was taken over is admitted.
It is also stated that through resolution, dated 01.12.1997, the Trust Board of the Devasthanam fixed the consolidated salaries for the petitioners and other employees and that the petitioners are not covered by G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 08.10.1997. He further stated that a resolution has been passed on 08.01.2000 by the Trust Board to frame separate set of rules for administration of taken over Temples and the same is under process.
Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam.
It is a matter of record that Sri Pattabhi Ramaswamy Temple was brought under the purview of the Devasthanam. Initially the salaries of the employees of the Temples were fixed on adhoc basis. The matter pertaining to the fixation of the service conditions of the employees of the Temples brought under the purview of the Devasthanam was pending since a long time. Some of the effected employees filed W.P.No.5484 of 1990 before this Court ventilating their grievance. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 27.07.1999, and directions were issued to finalise the matter of fixation of pay scales and other conditions, within a period of two months from the date of the order. The Devasthanam, in turn, passed a resolution on 29/30.01.1999 fixing the emoluments for the employees of the Temples taken over, between 1984 and 1992. It was also resolved that separate set of rules must be framed for the employees of the Temples, taken over by the Devasthanam subsequent to 1994. The resolution was submitted to Government for its approval, but it is languishing there for the past more than a decade. The Board also did not take any steps for the employees of the Temples taken over subsequent to 1994. The petitioners fall into that category. The very purpose of bringing the Temples under the purview of the Devasthanam is to improve them in all respects. The enhancement of the service conditions of the employees would certainly go a very long way in encouraging them to render meritorious and dedicated service. Further, the emoluments of the petitioners were fixed way back in the year 1997. For example, the salary of Archaka is fixed at Rs.1,000/- per month, that of Pricharika at Rs.750/- per month and of other employees, at Rs.400/- per month. Even an unskilled labourer engaged as Sweeper or Watchman is being paid Rs.150/- per day, and he works for few hours in a day. It is unconscionable, and is unthinkable, that a person can be required to work as a full time employee of a Temple at salary of Rs.400/- per month. The basic salary of a Class IV employee in the Devasthanam is about five to six times more than the Archaka of the Temple. There cannot be any justification for such a treatment. In fact, had the Temple been not taken over, the petitioners would certainly have got the benefit of enhanced salaries and their hope that their condition would improve, if the Temple is not brought under the purview of the Devasthanam has virtually been shattered. It would be a reflection on the functioning of the Devasthanam as well as the Government. There is no ray of hope that the Government would do anything in this regard, particularly when a resolution passed by the Board of the Devasthanam is languishing for a decade. Had it been any populistic scheme, capable of fetching votes or helping any provincial leader, the Government would have doled not only its own funds, but also the funds of the Devasthanam, without any loss of time. The petitioners can no longer be subjected to the failing mercy of the respondents.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall take immediate steps for fixation of the salaries of the employees of Sri Pattabhi Ramaswamy Temple as early as possible. Till the service conditions are framed and finalised, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam shall pay the salaries at the minimum pay scales, as being paid to the corresponding category of its regular employees to the petitioners also with effect from October, 2012. In case any of the petitioners attained the age of superannuation, they shall be extended the benefit of lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000/- on tentative basis. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
____________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
30.08.2012