Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamy Temple vs Jagit Singh And Ors.1 And Consequential ... on 4 December, 2025
APHC010551852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3545]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1277/2025
Between:
1. NEMALIGUNDLA RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER. NEMALIGUNDIA RANGANAYAKA SWAMY
TEMPLE PULLALACHERUVU, RACHERLA MANDAL, J
PRAKASAM DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
AND
1. AKAVEETI RANGANAYAKULU, S/O. NAGAI RAJU, HINDU. MALE,
AGED 33 YEARS WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI NEMALIGUNDIA
RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE (EMPLOYEE CODE NO.7188)
J.PULLALABHERUVU PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2. AKAVEETI VENKATA PRASAD, S/OSESHAYYA, HINDU, MALE,
AGED 40 YEARS, WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI NEMALIGUNDIA
RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, (EMPLOYEE CODE NO.7189)
J.PULLALACHERUVU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3.
3. AKAVEETI SRINIVASULU, S/O. SESHAYYA HINDU, MALE, AGED
43 WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI NEMALIGUNDIA
RANGANDYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, (EMPLOYEE CODE NO.719.0)
J. PULLALACHERUVU, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT.
4. KANUMARLA NEMALIGUNDAM, S/O. VENKATA RANGAYYA,
HINDU, MALE, AGED 57 YEARS. WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI
NEMALIGUNDIA RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, (EMPLOYEE
CODE NO.7194) J. PULLALACHERUVU, RACHERLA MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2
5. KANUMARLA RANGA SWAMY, S/O. CHINNA TIRUPATHI, HINDU,
MALE, AGED 36 YEARS. WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI
NEMALIGUNDIA RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, (EMPLOYEE
CODE NO.7195) J. PULLALACHERUVU, RACHERLA MANDAL,.
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. KANUMARLA RANGA SWAMY, S/O. RANGA SAI HINDU,MALE,
AGED 57 YEARS. WORKING AS BARBER IN SRI NEMALIGUNDIA
RANGANAYAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, (EMPLOYEE CODE NO.9251)
J. PULLALACHERUVU, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT. 7.
7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
(ENDOWMENTS), A.P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVTHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8.
8. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, A.P.,
GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 9.
9. REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER,
ENDOWMENTSDEPARTMENT,MULTI ZONE-LL, HATHIRAMJI
MATH, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. DEVI SUBHASHINI ANNE SC For Endowments
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
WRIT APPEAL No.1277 of 2025
JUDGMENT:((Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:-
This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15232 of 2020.
2. The 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, feeling aggrieved by the said orders, filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the orders of the learned singe Judge. Respondents No.1 to 6 herein are the writ petitioners and respondent No.7, 8 and 9 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 in the said Writ Petition.
3. Heard both sides extensively at admission stage.
4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereafter referred to as the writ petitioners and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned orders.
Prayer in the Writ Petition:-
5. The writ petitioners sought the relief in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not granting the time scale to the petitioners, in terms of the orders of the Honourable Apex Court in State 4 of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagit Singh and Ors.1 and consequential circular in Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018 dated 24.09.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the respondent No.3 to implement the circular dated 24.09.2018 and grant all consequential benefits including the back wages etc..
Case of Writ Petitioners:-
6. [i] The writ petitioners are the hereditary employees and barbers working in 3rd respondent temple i.e., Sri Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Pullalacheruvu, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District.
[ii] The temple was taken over by the Endowments Department on 01.04.1993. The department has recognised the hereditary employees of the temple and paying consolidated salary, they were given all benefits as hereditary employees and salaries have been enhanced to Rs.13,000/-.
[iii] The Writ petitioners have been working in the temple for several years but the salary is insufficient for maintenance of the family, for education of the children and medical expenses etc. They have no other livelihood except discharging their duties entrusted by the temple authorities. They have put in unblemished service of 27 years. They are entitled for the benefit of in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagit Singh and Ors.' case [cited 1 supra].
1 2017(1) SCC 148 5 [iv] In terms of said judgment, the Commissioner of Endowments Department issued a circular in Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.09.2018 for implementation of the guidelines of Supreme Court, fixing the salaries in 6(a) temples concerned.
[v] According to the said circular, Archakas, Pandits and other religious staff with the various nomenclature employed and who have completed 5 years of service are entitled to Rs.15,000/-, who have completed 10years of service are entitled to Rs.17,000/-, who have completed 15 years of service are entitled for Rs.20,000/- and those who have completed 20 years of service are entitled for Rs.25,000/-, per month.
[vi] All the writ petitioners have completed 25 years of service, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit in terms of the circular.
[vii] The request of the writ petitioners for enhancement is not considered while granting the same to others. Hence, the same is violative of article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, they are constrained to file the preset writ petition, seeking the relief in terms of Writ of Mandamus, since their representation dated 24.11.2019 did not yield any positive result.
Contention of the respondents:-
7. [i] The 4th respondent -Devasthanam was initially registered under 6 (c), subsequently registered under 6 (b) and thereafter 6(a)(ii) of 6 A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987.
There is no record in the office of the 4th respondent to show that the writ petitioners are hereditary barbers. The 4th respondent temple is opening only on Saturday in a week to have Darshan of deity i.e., Sri Nemaligundala Ranganayaka Swamy. Therefore, there will be work for the writ petitioners for only 4 days in a month, and for 52 days in a year. There will be no work in the remaining days and the writ petitioners are doing their own work on the balance days, therefore, there is no financial loss caused to the writ petitioners, particularly to their livelihood.
[ii] In the year 2004, all the six barbers were fixed in consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month, thereafter in the year 2011, it was enhanced to Rs.2000/-. The strength of the 4th respondent-Devasthanam is -
1) Archaka - 2 (on the scale), 2) Archaka - 2 (consolidated,)
3) Paricharika - 2 (consolidated) 4) barber - 6, apart from the administrative Staff.
[iii] As per the circular in Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.09.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, the enhanced consolidated pay Rs.13,000/- is paid to all the petitioners.
[iv] The establishment expenditure has crossed 47% out of the total income of the temples, if there is further enhancement of salaries, it will go to 70% of the total income, which is against the Section 57(2) (a) (i) of the Act, 1987.
7
[v] If the expenditure increases, the Devasthanam will not be in a position to take up developmental programmes. On special occasions Devasthanam authorities are hiring outside the barbers on payment @400/- to Rs.500/- per day.
Findings of the learned Single Judge:-
8. [i] Circular issued by the 2nd respondent on 24.9.2018 pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagith Singh and Others' case, indicates payments are as follows:-
"11. As far as the Archakas, Paricharikas and other religious employees, already working on Contract/Consolidated salary basis, in 6(a) temples are concerned, to the extent possible the remunerations shall be paid as follows:-
Paricharikas & Archaka
Talihaswamy Parayanadars
Purohits / Pandits
and other religious
staff with various
nomenclature
For those who have 13,000/-pm 15,000/-pm
completed 5 years of
service
For those who have 15,000/-pm 17,000/-pm
completed 10 years of
service
For those who have 18,000/-pm 20,000/-pm
completed 15 years of
service
For those who have 20,000/-pm 25,000/-pm
completed 20 years of
service
[ii] The contention of the writ petitioners that they shall also be considered as religious employees and entitled to remuneration as per the circular is convincing and the circular will apply to the writ petitioners for 8 granting minimum scale. Hence, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the said circular in respect of writ petitioners also.
Arguments in the Appeal:-
For the appellant/4th respondent:-
9. Sri V.Venu Gopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Devasthanam would submit the following points:-
[i] The writ petitioners work only for one day in a week, 4 days in a month and 52 days in a year. Therefore, it is not a continuous employment.
[ii] In the list of religious duties, the duty of the writ petitioners and barbers do not fit in.
[iii] There will be financial implication of increasing in the establishment expenditure at more than 70%, whereby the developmental activities will get affected and the same is not permissible. For the respondents 1 to 6/writ petitioners:-
10. (i) The respondents were granted Rs.13,000/- basic in terms of the Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.09.2018 but there is denial with regard to further enhancement as per the scale fixed in circular, on completion of respective years of service.
(ii) The duties of the barbers, who attend tonsuring work at the temples shall be considered as a religious work. Treating their work different 9 from other religious works like Paricharikas, and pandits etc., will amount to discrimination. Therefore, the same is not permissible.
11. Perused the impugned orders and the material papers on record.
12. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides.
13. Now, the points that arise for determination are -
1) Whether the tonsuring work attended by the petitioners is not a religious work? And whether treating them differently from Paricharikas and Pandits etc., for the purpose of extending the statutory and legally entitled benefits, amounts to discrimination and violative of article 14, 19(1) ()g) of the constitution of India?
2) Whether the impugned orders dated 12.09.2025 in W.P.No.15232 of 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, require any interference?
3) What is the result of the appeal?
Analysis, reasoning and consideration:-
14. Facts not in dispute:-
(1) The writ petitioners have been attending the tonsuring work. (2) Minimum pay of Rs.13,000/- per month was granted to the writ petitioners.
(3) The writ petitioners are working since a long time, 10 (4) As per the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, the consolidated pay of Rs.13,000/- per month being paid to the petitioners and the same is continued in terms of Circular No. Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.09.2018 Whether the tonsuring work is a religious work:-
15. The practice of cutting or shaving the hair of one's head is a religious ritual performed at temples or during special occasions. It signifies the divinity, humility, and purification. This practice spread across various religions and in Hinduism known as 'Mundanam'. This ritual usually takes place at a baby's first hair cut, called as 'Chudakarma'. It is considered as sacred act of purification. Tonsuring is a ceremony in which one believes that the removal of hair symbolizes the removal of past sins.
16. This is considered as a sacred offering of scarifying one's beauty to God with the belief that they themselves will get relieved from misfortune.
Further, as a vow to Deity, for fulfilling the wish, tonsuring takes place. On certain occasions, even Christianity and Islam also recognise the activity of tonsure - as a symbol of humility in Christianity and as a symbol of equality and humility before God in a case of Hajj pilgrimage in the Muslim community.
17. With respect to a general query, it is answered by both sides that in respect of tonsuring at other major temples like Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam etc., the tonsuring work is considered as a religious work and 11 the pay is extended on that basis to barbers engaged for that purpose. Therefore, there cannot be any discrimination in respect of other temples particularly in the light of oneness and equality. Looking from any angle one cannot say that tonsuring activity in temples is not religious activity and the barbers, who attend tonsuring work are not engaged in religious work. Therefore, indubitable conclusion possible is that the barbers attending tonsuring work can be considered as engaged in religious work. There shall be equal treatment across the State in respect of persons attending such work.
Objection with regard to working for one day in a week:-
18. Opening of the temple for one day in a week may be depending on the practice and convention as per the ethos an institution follows. That does not mean that there will be no temple and no activity on the other days. A person waiting for an activity that occurs on one day in a week does not necessarily mean that he is one day daily-wage labourer engaged for that particular day. From the angle of service-jurisprudence, it is the option of the employer to use the services of an employee, for a particular part of the period for which an employee is engaged or for whole period. Whether it is a religious institution or a private institution or any other institution it makes no difference. The employment is continuous. When some priest, dharmakartha/trustee etc., attached to some temple, having continuity of association can claim the benefits like pay, perk and esteem etc. for whole month, the same benefit shall be extended to the other 12 categories of the individuals associated full time with a temple or the institution. So the argument that the work of writ petitioners is only for one day in a week does not merit consideration for the simple reason that it is the choice of the institution/employer asking the employees/writ petitioners to work, when the writ petitioners are continuously and permanently engaged for the purpose of being available and attached to the temple and more particularly, when they have been continuously working. If necessary, their services can be utilised elsewhere by the institution. Financial constraints and other objections:-
19. The financial burden in case of increase of pay is not demonstrated with any statistics or tenable objection from any statutory body. While brining a religious institution within the fold of Endowment Department the authorities adopts certain scales. It cannot be said that the scales are fixed under the circular Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018 dated 24.09.2018 without considering the financial implications. It is relevant to note that as per the assertions made in the counter affidavit, the religious institution/ Sri Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamy Temple was time to time upgraded i.e., initially registered under 6 (c), subsequently the same is registered under 6
(b) and thereafter 6(a)(ii) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987, which reads as under:-
"6. Preparation and publication of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income:- 13
The Commissioner shall prepare separately and publish in the prescribed manner, a list of -
(a) (ii) the religious institutions and endowments other than maths;
Whose annual income as calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under Sec.65 exceeds rupees five lakhs;"
20. Having implemented part of the circular to the extent of granting first basic pay, at the time of extending next level of pay as per the scale, on completion of 10, 15 and 20 years of service, taking the objections can be considered as only an arm twisting and over smart attempt of the persons in bureaucracy. Religious activity is not a business activity. Nor it is a commission based one.
21. In W.P.No.42518 of 2015 and Batch in a case between K.Satti Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.., a learned Single Judge of this Court while addressing the work of Prasadam carriers, in the cadre of attenders and sweepers pertaining to religious institution, extended the benefit of Jagjith singh's case, when the same was questioned in the Writ Appeal vide W.A.No.1241 of 2017 filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the leaned Single Judge.
22. In the present case, it is contended that the circular and scales are implemented in respect of the posts like Archakas, and Paricharikas but when it came to the writ petitioners, titling their work as non-religious work, the enhancement of scales in terms of the circular is not extended. The work/service rendered by the writ petitioners is religious work and reasons thereof are mentioned above. Therefore, the discriminatory approach 14 against the petitioners on the ground of financial constraints is found not acceptable.
23. In this context, this Court finds it relevant to recollect the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu Vs. State fo A.P., and Ors.2 and a consequential case to it, vide Sri Divi Kodandarama Saram and Ors. Vs. Stateof A.P. and Ors.3, wherein the rationalisation of work, fixation of pay, providing time scales extending of benefits and categorisation of secular and religious work are all categorically addressed including rationalisation of staff pattern and cutting down expenses, in respect of secular works firstly, and thereafter religious works apart from categorising the temples with reference to the income generation etc., in terms of Section 6 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 etc. The writ petitioners questioned even the circular in Rc.No.A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.09.2018 and asked for minimum time scale in terms of Jagit Singh's case [cited 1 supra]. However, learned Single Judge has directed compliance of the said circular. The writ petitioners have not filed any appeal. It is surprising that the respondents in the writ petition having issued the circular restricted its compliance to the first part of payment of basic contemplated therein, in respect of the writ petitioners and when compliance of circular is ordered by learned Single Judge, filed the present appeal. 2 (1996) 9 SCC 548 3 (1997) 6 SCC 189 15
24. Upon considering the spirit behind statutory provisions and the objective of the legislation and the precedential guidance in terms of A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu's case and Sri Divi Kodandarama Saram's case [cited 2 and 3 supra] and upon considering the nature of work attended by the writ petitioners herein, whose posts are in the sanctioned strength [6 barbers] for attending tonsuring work, this Court is unable to appreciate the stand of the appellant that, the benefit of the circular cannot be fully extended to them in view of the financial constrains. No force is found in the said submission.
25. For the afore stated reasons, points 1 and 2 are answered against the appellant, concluding that the tonsuring work in temples is a religious activity and employees (barbers) performing the tonsuring work shall be considered as attending religious work and that there are no grounds to interfere with impugned orders.
26. In the result, the Writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the impugned Order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15232 of 2020. No costs.
27. However, before parting, we deem it proper to make following observations, keeping in view of the plight of the persons working in connection with religious activity, particularly who are offering prayers for the purpose of common good or peace. Unless they are assured of their peaceful sustenance, they may not be in a position to dedicate their services completely and whole heartedly.
16
1) When a Hindu religious institution, particularly a temple, is brought within the fold of the Endowment Department, there shall be regular cadre strength and permanent posts.
2) There shall be recruitment to the posts from time to time, as appropriate, depending on eligibility and following due process of law.
3) There shall be no discrimination in pay scales, or for the same category of work, without there being an intelligible differentia.
4) There can be a provision for stop gap arrangements for availing services on a temporary basis, but in no case shall it extend beyond six (6) months.
5) There shall be a clear policy, following the rule of law, for rationalisation of staffing patterns, scales, promotions, and equal pay for equal work, etc.
6) Steps shall be promptly taken to ensure the release of pay benefits without compelling priests and other persons attending religious duties to approach the courts of law; this shall be the duty of the Dharmakartha/Trustee or the persons managing the institution.
7) There shall be clear accountability of the concerned persons in that regard.
17
8) We expect that the State Government and all other concerned officials of the Endowment Department will take all necessary steps to ensure proper compliance with the above aspects. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: 04.12.2025 Pnr 18 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.1277 of 2025 Dt. 04-12-2025 Pnr 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1277/2025 # Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Rep. By Its Executive Officer. Nemaligundia Ranganayaka Swamy Temple , Pullalacheruvu, Racherla Mandal, J Prakasam District.
.... Appellant Versus
$ Akaveeti Ranganayakulu, s/o. Nagai Raju, Hindu. Male, Aged 33 Years, Working as Barber in Sri Nemaligundia Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, (Employee Code No.7188) J.Pullalabheruvu Prakasam District, And 8 Others .... Respondent DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.12.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 20 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1277/2025 % 04.12.2025 # Nemaligundla Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, Rep. By Its Executive Officer. Nemaligundia Ranganayaka Swamy Temple , Pullalacheruvu, Racherla Mandal, J Prakasam District.
.... Appellant Versus
$ Akaveeti Ranganayakulu, s/o. Nagai Raju, Hindu. Male, Aged 33 Years, Working as Barber in Sri Nemaligundia Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, (Employee Code No.7188) J.Pullalabheruvu Prakasam District, And 8 Others .... Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Devi Subhashini Anne SC for Endowments ! Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao Sri GP For Services II < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2017(1) SCC 148 (1996) 9 SCC 548 (1997) 6 SCC 189