Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri C.Gajendra Devar, vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, on 27 December, 2024
APHC010841952016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 18779/2016
Between:
Sri C.gajendra Devar, ...PETITIONER
AND
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A PRABHAKAR SARMA SC FOR TTD
2. Y V RAVI PRASAD(SENIOR SC FOR TTD)
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
wp_18779_2016
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
".... issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo LDis.Roc.No.TL4/15972/2015 dated 15.12.2015 issued by the 5th respondent in so far as regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 13.2.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.855 Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 8.10.1997 and set aside the same to that extent and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Tiruchurnalu man in S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram, Chittoor District w.e.f. 8.10.1997 with all consequential benefits and continue him in service till he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years as per G.O.Ms.No.1171, Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 16.12.1987 and pass......"
2) The brief facts of the case are that Sri Veda Narayana Swamy Temple (for short "S.V.N.S Temple") is an old temple said to have been constructed during the regime of Sri Krishna Devaraya. The petitioner‟s family has been doing the service of Tiruchurnalu as mirasidars since the time of their forefathers in the said temple. Petitioner‟s great grandfather namely Vaithya Devar was doing service of Tiruchurnalu and after his death, his son Venkata Swamy Devar i.e. who is grandfather of the petitioner, was doing service. His grandfather had two sons namely Darmalinga Devar and Dhanunjaya Devar (father of the petitioner) and they constituted a joint family. After the death of the said Venkata Swamy Devar, 3 VS,J wp_18779_2016 Dharmalinga Devar was doing services on behalf of their joint family. While so, the management of S.V.N.S. Temple was taken over by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short "T.T.D.") in the year 1967. After the death of petitioner‟s paternal uncle Dharmalinga Devar on 19.6.1980, father of the petitioner was doing services and on 17.12.1981 all the joint family properties including Mirasi services were partitioned equally among two branches of the family, accordingly, partition deed was also executed to that effect. As per which, branch of Dharmalinga Devar had to render services for 1 year and branch of the petitioner had to do services for next year by rotation, the period was from 1st January to 31st December. At the time of taking over the subject temple by T.T.D., father of the petitioner had represented to the T.T.D. to recognize their right as Mirasidar and the T.T.D had recognized the same. On 17.12.1981 the father of the petitioner and Shankaraiah Devar (one of the sons of Dharmalinga Devar) filed a Joint representation before the Executive Officer of T.T.D. through temple inspector on 17.12.1981 informing that they have partitioned the properties and liabilities of the joint family and decided to render Tiruchurnalu Service by turn wise on yearly basis i.e. one year by Shankaraiah Devar and next year by the father of the petitioner. The said arrangement of rendering service by Shankaraiah Devar representing their branch was continued only up to 30.08.1983 on which date he along with his 3 brothers relinquished their right in favour of Babu Devar (one of their brothers) and the same was informed to T.T.D. by the representation dated 30.08.1983. As per the said relinquishment deed Babu Devar has to do service for one year representing their branch (Shankaraiah Devar) whenever their turn comes. Though as per the relinquishment deed Babu Devar was entitled to do the 4 VS,J wp_18779_2016 service of Tiruchurnalu in the temple he never rendered his service during his turn and used to appoint proxies during his term, whereas father of the petitioner constrained to render his services during his turn till 1991 and during the year 1992, the petitioner was permitted to render the Mirasi service in the place of his father, who fell ill and subsequently, the petitioner continued to render his services representing their branch, even after the death of his father during their turn.
3) While so, the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ("Act 30 of 1987") (for short "the Act"), came into force, duly abolishing all hereditary, Mirasi Services etc. The said Act was questioned by several persons and the matter was carried up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19.03.1996 rendered in the case of "Executive Officer, TTD, Tirupati Vs. A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu (W.P. (Civil) No.638 of 1997)" upheld the validity of said Act and said that the holder of any office is entitled to payment of salary prescribed under the rules for the services rendered by an Archaka, Mirasidar etc. As on the date of judgment, the petitioner was holding the office by duly rendering services of Tiruchurnalu. Therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on permanent basis. But, surprisingly, without issuing the orders as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, the respondents once again permitted Sankaraiah Devar (in the place of Babu Devar) to render his services as per their turn in the year 1997. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19336 of 1997 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to continue as Tiruchurnaluman in S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram and also to pay the emoluments prescribed as per 5 VS,J wp_18779_2016 section 34 of the Act and the rules made there under including the arrears for the services rendered since 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.12.1997 directing the petitioner and contesting respondents to prefer claim petitions before the Endowments Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2 of 1998, whereas Sankaraiah Devar filed O.A.No.1 of 1998 before the Commissioner Endowments, who disposed of the same by an order dated 29.08.2001 directing both the parties to approach the Executive Officer, T.T.D. and directing him to pass necessary orders. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 03.06.2002 permitting Sankaraiah Devar to render Tiruchurnalu service. Questioning the above said orders i.e., the order of the Commissioner of Endowments and the order of respondent No.1 herein dated 03.06.2002, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10848 of 2002 before this Court and this Court was pleased to set aside the orders dated 03.06.2002 issued by respondent No.1 and directed the A.P. Endowments Tribunal to take up O.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1998 and to adjudicate the claims. Accordingly, the A.P. Endowments Tribunal renumbered the said O.As as O.A.Nos.507 (1 of 1998) and 508 of 2011 (2 of 1998) and after due enquiry passed a Common Judgment (Award) dated 16.8.2012 holding that the petitioner was rendering the services representing the branch of his father late Dhanunjaya Devar, hence the petitioner is entitled for being appointed as Tiruchurnaluman along with Sankaraiah Devar representing the branch of late Dharmalinga Devar.
4) After the above O.As were allowed by A.P. Endowments Tribunal, respondent No.1 issued the proceedings in Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999, dated 28.11.2011 informing that as per 6 VS,J wp_18779_2016 section 34 of Act 30/1987 only one person from the Mirasi family can be allowed to render services duly obtaining the consent of the other legal heirs, that too the person who is at service at the time of abolition of Mirasi rights and as such appointing both the persons as per the Common Judgment dated 16.8.2012 may again lead to mirasi system. After receiving the said order, the petitioner and Shankaraiah Devar entered into a compromise and filed a Petition before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal and the said petitions i.e. I.A.No.1311 of 2012 in O.A.No.507 of 2011 and I.A.No.1312 of 2012 in O.A.No.508 of 2011 were taken up together and a common order was passed by the Endowments Tribunal on 14.12.2012, declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief solely being appointed as Tiruchurnalu man in the S.V.N.S. Temple as Shankaraiah Devar relinquished his right on receiving Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner herein.
5) Pursuant to the same, respondent No.1 issued proceedings Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999 dated 11.01.2013 appointing the petitioner as Tiruchurnalu man in S.V.N.S. Temple in the pay scale. It is clearly stated in the said proceedings that at the time of abolition of Mirasi system, the petitioner was rendering service as Tiruchunalu man in S.V.N.S. Temple, Nagalapuram. It is clear from the above proceedings, that the petitioner was rendering services as Tiruchurnalu man at the time of abolition of Mirasi rights/system. As the petitioner was rendering service on the date of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is entitled for regularization of his services from 8.10.1997 as per G.O.Ms.No.855, Revenue (Endowments-1), dated 8.10.1997 and he is also entitled to be continued in service till completion of age of 65 years as the age of 7 VS,J wp_18779_2016 superannuation as per Part-II of G.O.Ms.No.1171, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 16.12.1987 is fixed at 65 years for the post of Tiruchurnalu man i.e. Melam staff of Nagalapuram Temple. It is also clear from the note orders issued in ROC.No.TS3/14963/1999, dated 10.12.2013 that the post of Tiruchurunalu man is a unique and only post in Sri Veda Narayana Swamy Temple, Nagalapuram filled by the petitioner, who belongs to the erstwhile Mirasidar family, therefore no roster point is necessary as per rule 9 (iii) in service rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1060, dated 24.10.1989. Hence, the respondents are bound to regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.10.1997 for all the purposes including retiral benefits. But, surprisingly, respondent No.5 issued a Memo LDis. Roc.No.TL4/15972/2015, dated 15.12.2015 regularizing services of the petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2013, though he is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 08.10.1997. Hence, he got issued a registered legal notice dated 11.04.2016 to respondent Nos.1 to 4 clearly explaining that his services have to be regularized w.e.f. 08.10.1997 and to modify the order dated 15.12.2015 within a period of 4 weeks. Despite receiving the same, the respondents did not pass any orders till date. The action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.10.1997 is under challenge before this Court. Hence, the writ petition
6) When the matter came up for hearing on 30.12.2019, this Court passed the following interim order in I.A.No.01 of 2018:
"............
In view of the same, there shall be interim direction to continue the petitioner in service till 22.01.2020."8
VS,J wp_18779_2016
7) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from time to time.
8) Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner and specifically contended that though the petitioner was rendering service as Tiruchurnaluman in Sri. VNS Temple, Nagalapuram, as on the date of abolition of Mirasi system in the temple, he was not taken to T.T.D. service w.e.f. 22.03.96 due to rival claim between him and his cousin Sri. C. Sankaraiah Devar. The dispute between the petitioner and his cousin Sri. C.Sankaraiah Devar was settled as per common order (award) dated 14.12.12 of Endowments Tribunal, AP, in O.A.No. 507of 2011 filed by the petitioner and O.A.No.508 of 2011 filed by his cousin Sri. C.Sakaraiah Devar, wherein it was held that Sri. C.Gajendra Devar (the petitioner herein) is entitled to the relief solely being appointed as Tiruchurnaluman in S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram.
9) As per the above order dated 14.12.2012 of A.P.Endowments Tribunal Sri Gajendra Devar was appointed as Tiruchurnaluman in S.V.N.S. Temple, Nagalapuram on payment of Rs.7,740/- in the pay scale of Rs.7740-23040/- with usual allowances as applicable in RPS 2010, vide Proceedings TS3/14963/99 dated 11.01.2013 and 01.12.2013. His temporary services were regularized with probationary rights w.e.f. 13.02.2013 and he was declared as an approved probationer w.e.f. 12.02.2015, as per Memo Roc.No.TL4/15972/15 dated 15.12.2015.
10) It is further contended that after abolition of Mirasi System in the TTD Temples, the Government of A.P have constituted three 9 VS,J wp_18779_2016 men Committee and as per the suggestions of the Committee, pay scales, cadre strength of Archakas etc. for TTD Ex.Mirasi Temples was sanctioned, as per G.O.Ms.No. 855 dated 8.10.1997. As per the said G.O one post of Tiruchurnaluman was sanctioned to S.V.N.S.temple, Nagalapuram. The petitioner is claiming for regularizing his services from 08.10.1997, the date on which, the post of Tiruchurnaluman was sanctioned to S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram. He was not taken to TTD service w.e.f. 22.03.1996, due to rival claim for Tiruchurnaluman post between the petitioner and his cousin Sri. C. Sankaraih Devar. After Settlement of dispute as per Endowments Tribunal order dated 14.12.2012, the petitioner was appointed to TTD service w.e.f. 13.02.2013, as such the petitioner cannot claim service w.e.f. 08.10.1997, as he has not worked in TTD service from 08.10.1997 to 12.02.2013. It is further contended that as of now, the retirement age of TTD employees on par with the Government Employees, and that the petitioner is in Melam staff (Tiruchurnalu man) in the temple, therefore, the retirement age is 60 years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
11) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.
12) Admitted facts in the present case are that S.V.N.S Temple is an old temple said to have been constructed during the regime of Sri Krishna Devaraya. The petitioner‟s family has been doing the service of Tiruchurnalu as Mirasidars since the time of their forefathers. Petitioner‟s great grandfather namely Vaithya Devar was doing service of Tiruchurnalu and after his death, his son Venkata Swamy Devar i.e. who is grandfather of the petitioner, was 10 VS,J wp_18779_2016 rendering services. The management of S.V.N.S. Temple was taken over by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam in the year 1967. After the death of petitioner‟s paternal uncle Dharmalinga Devar on 19.6.1980, father of the petitioner was doing services and on 17.12.1981 all the joint family properties including Mirasi services were partitioned equally among two branches of the family, and, accordingly, partition deed was also executed to that effect. At the time of taking over the subject temple by T.T.D., father of the petitioner had represented to the T.T.D. to recognize their right as Mirasidar and the T.T.D had recognized the same. On 17.12.1981, the father of the petitioner and Shankaraiah Devar (one of the sons of Dharmalinga Devar) filed a Joint representation before the Executive Officer of T.T.D. through temple inspector on 17.12.1981 informing that they have partitioned the properties and liabilities of the joint family and decided to render Tiruchurnalu Service by turn wise on yearly basis i.e. one year by Shankaraiah Devar and next year by the father of the petitioner. The said arrangement of rendering service by Shankaraiah Devar representing their branch was continued only up to 30.08.1983, the date on which he along with his 3 brothers relinquished their right in favour of Babu Devar (one of their brothers) and the same was informed to T.T.D. by the representation dated 30.08.1983. As per the said deed Babu Devar has to do service for one year representing the branch of Shankaraiah Devar whenever their turn comes. As the Government enacted the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ("Act 30 of 1987") (for short "the Act"), abolishing all hereditary, Mirasi Services etc, the same was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 19.03.1996 in the case of 11 VS,J wp_18779_2016 A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu upheld the validity of Act and said that the holder of any office is entitled to payment of salary prescribed under the rules for the services rendered by an Archaka, Mirasidar etc. After the said decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the respondents once again permitted Sankaraiah Devar (in the place of Babu Devar) to render his services as per their turn in the year 1997. At this stage, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19336 of 1997 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to permit the petitioner to continue as Tiruchurnaluman in S.V.N.S. Temple, Nagalapuram and pay the emoluments prescribed as per section 34 of the Act and the rules made there under including the arrears for the services rendered in the year 1996.
13) W.P.No.19336 of 1997 was disposed of by this Court on 30.12.1997, the operative portion reads thus:
"Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner and contesting respondents to prefer their claim petitions before the Endowments Commissioner within a period of two months from today and on such claim petitions being filed, the Commissioner shall hold enquiry and decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. Until such a decision is rendered by the Endowments Commissioner, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam shall appoint any other suitable person other than the petitioner and contesting respondents 4 and 5 for rendering services as Mirasidar of Tiruchurnalu-man in S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram and such person so appointed shall render services until a final decision is rendered by the Commissioner and such a person would not have any rights of his own by virtue of this interim arrangement. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, shall appoint such a person within a period of three weeks from today. No costs."12
VS,J wp_18779_2016
14) Thereafter, in pursuance of the direction given in the said writ petition, petitioner filed O.A.No.2 of 1998 and Sankaraiah Devar filed O.A.No.1 of 1998 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner Endowments, instead of conducting enquiry as directed by this Court, has delegated his powers to Executive Officer, T.T.D. directing him to pass necessary orders on the said petitions. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 herein issued proceedings dated 03.06.2002 permitting Sankaraiah Devar to render Tiruchurnalu service. Aggrieved by the action of Endowments Commissioner in delegating his powers to respondent No.1 and as well as the orders dated 03.06.2002, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10848 of 2002, wherein this Court has set aside the order dated 03.06.2002 passed by respondent No.1 and as the A.P. Endowments Tribunal was constituted by that time, directed the said Tribunal to take up O.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1998, accordingly the Endowments Tribunal renumbered the said O.As as O.A.No.507 and 508 of 2011. The Tribunal after due enquiry passed a common judgment (Award) dated 16.08.2012 holding that the petitioner was rendering services representing the branch of his father late Dhanunjaya Devar, therefore, he is entitled for being appointed as Tiruchurnaluman along with Sankaraiah Devar. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued proceedings in Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999 dated 28.11.2011 informing that as per Section 34 of the Act only one person from the Mirasi family can be allowed to render services by obtaining the consent of the other legal heirs that too the person who is at service at the time of abolition of Mirasi rights, in pursuance of which, the petitioner and Shankaraiah Devar entered into a compromise and filed a compromise petitions i.e. I.A.No.1311 of 2012 in O.S.No.507 of 2011 and I.A.No.1312 of 2012 in 13 VS,J wp_18779_2016 O.S.No.508 of 2011 before the A.P.Endowments Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal passed award dated 14.12.2012, the operative portion of which is as follows:
"i). That among the petitioner's respectively in O.A.507 & 508 of 2011, as the petitioner in O.A.507 by name Shankaraiah Devar having received Rs.25,000/- from petitioner in O.A.508 by name Gajendra Devar to forgo his rights and accordingly relinquished his right in favour of Gajendra Devar (petitioner in O.A.508) for his getting the appointment as Tiruchurnalu man in the S.V.N.S. Temple, the petitioner in O.A.507 by name Shnakaraiah Devar is not entitled to any more relief pursuant to the common award and decree in his favour in O.A.No.507/2011 as it is the Gajendra Devar (the petitioner in O.A.No.508) is entitled to the relief solely being appointed as Tiruchurnalu man in the S.V.N.S. Temple by respondents No.1-3.
ii). The 1 respondent E.O, TTD shall implement the same and report compliance to the Tribunal within one month from today."
15) From the above, it is clear that as Shankaraiah Devar having received Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner herein, relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner herein, and therefore, the petitioner is solely entitled for being appointed as Tiruchurnalu man in the S.V.N.S. Temple by T.T.D. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.1 issued proceedings Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999 dated 11.01.2013 appointing the petitioner herein as Tiruchurnalu man in S.V.N.S.Temple. On 15.12.2015, respondent No.5 issued impugned proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 13.02.2013, the specific portion of the impugned proceedings is as follows:
14VS,J wp_18779_2016 "The temporary services of Sri C.Gajendra Devar, Tiruchurnaluman, Sri V.N.S. Temple, Nagalapuram is regularized with probationary rights with effect from 13.02.2013 FN and he is declared as an approved probationary with effect from 13.02.2013 FN the date on which he satisfactorily completed the prescribed period of two years of services on the AN of 12.02.2015 within a continuous period of three years"
16) It is important to note here that when the Act 30 of 1987 whereby all hereditary, Mirasi Services etc., were abolished, was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19.03.1996 rendered in the case of A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu upheld the validity of the Act and said that the holder of any office is entitled to payment of salary prescribed under the rules for the services rendered by an Archaka, Mirasidar etc. As on the date of delivery of the said judgment, the petitioner was holding the office rendering services of Tiruchurnalu, and the same was admitted by the Executive Officer of TTD in his proceedings Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999 dated 11.01.2013, the specific admission is as follows:
"Appointing both the petitioners may again lead to mirasi system. As per Section 34 of Act 30/1987 only one person from the mirasi family can be allowed to render service duly obtaining the consent of the other legal heirs, that too the person who is at service at the time of abolition of mirasi rights. At the time of abolition of mirasi system Sri C.Gajendra Devar is rendering service as Tiruchoornalu man in Sri Veda Narayana Swamy Temple, Nagalapuram."
17) As admitted by respondent No.1, the petitioner herein was rendering service as Tiruchurnalu man in S.V.N.S.Temple at the time of abolition of Mirasi system.
15VS,J wp_18779_2016
18) Further, as contended by the respondents, after abolition of Mirasi System in the TTD Temples, the Government of A.P. have constituted three men Committee and as per the suggestions of the Committee; pay scales, cadre strength of Archakas etc. for TTD Ex.Mirasi Temples was sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.855 dated 8.10.1997. It is an undisputed fact that as per the said G.O one post of Tiruchurnaluman was sanctioned to S.V.N.S.temple, Nagalapuram.
19) It is also an undisputed fact that the family of the petitioner has been rendering the services of Tiruchurnalu as Mirasidars since the time of their forefathers. 'Mirasi' refers to the inherited right to take part in temple rituals. Mirasidars were hereditary temple office holders who earned their living through Mirasi rights, which included lands given by the temple for performing services. However, the hereditary rights of Mirasidars and other temple office holders were abolished by the Government by enacting Act 30 of 1987. When the same was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19.03.1996 in the case of A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu held that holder of any office is entitled to payment of salary prescribed under the rules for the services rendered by an Archaka, Mirasidar etc.
20) As discussed above, the petitioner was holding the office rendering services of Tiruchurnalu as on the date of abolition of Mirasi system and the same was admitted by respondent No.1 in the proceedings Roc.No.TS3/14963/1999 dated 11.01.2013 that "at the time of abolition of mirasi system Sri C.Gajendra Devar (the petitioner herein) was rendering service as Tiruchoornalu man in Sri Veda Narayana Swamy Temple, Nagalapuram", and accordingly 16 VS,J wp_18779_2016 one post of Tiruchurnalu man was also sanctioned to S.V.N.S.Temple vide G.O.Ms.No.855 dated 08.10.1997, which was issued based on the recommendations made by three men Committee constituted in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Executive Officer, TTD, Tirupati Vs. A.S.Narayana Deekshitulu (W.P.(Civil) No.638 of 1987)". Since the petitioner has been continuously doing service of Tiruchurnaluman in S.V.N.S.temple since 1992 as he was permitted to render the Mirasi service in the place of his father, and also by common award dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal holding that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Tiruchurnalu man, and also in view of the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 dated 11.01.2013, it is clear that the petitioner has been rendering Tiruchurnalu man service in the temple continuously from the year 1992, however, by approaching between different forums for permitting him alone as Tiruchurnalu man. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the services of the petitioner are regularized w.e.f. 08.10.1997, the date on which the post of Tiruchurnalu man was sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.855 dated 08.10.1997, but without monetary benefits from 08.10.1997 till 13.02.2013, the date on which the petitioner was appointed in the said post. Further, the respondents are directed to calculate his service from 08.10.1997 for determining the retiral benefits.
21) Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that though the petitioner was continued in service in pursuance of the interim order dated 30.12.2019 passed by this Court, he was not paid any salary and other benefits attached to the said post after completion of 60 years, till date and he is going to 17 VS,J wp_18779_2016 retire on 31.12.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years as per G.O.Ms.No.1171 dated 16.12.1987 and requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.
22) Further, the petitioner contended that Thiruchunalu Man comes under Melam Staff, which fact is not denied by the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
23) Government of Andhra Pradesh framed rules called the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and other Office holders and servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 1987 vide G.O.Ms.No.1171 Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 16.12.1987 (for short "Rules"). Rule 1 of Part-II reads thus:
"The rules in this part shall apply to all Archakas and other office holders and servants of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams mentioned in Schedule-III and IV to this part."
24) Further, it is mentioned in Rule 8 of Part II of the said rules that the superannuation age for the staff holding the post mentioned in Schedule III is „65‟ years Rule 8 in Part-II reads as follows:
"Every person holding the post mentioned in the Schedule III shall retired on attaining the age of 65 years.
Provided that physically unfit person may be retired before the age of superannuation."
25) The post of "Melam staff (Nagalapuram temple)" is shown at serial No.25 of Schedule-III of the said Rules. Therefore, it is clear from the above Rule that the Melam Staff (Thiruchunalu Man) of 18 VS,J wp_18779_2016 Nagalapuram temple shall be continued in service till he attains the age of 65 years as per G.O.Ms.No.1171 dated 16.12.1987.
26) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
27) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Memo L.Dis.Roc.No.TL4/15972/2015 dated 15.12.2015 issued by respondent No.5. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Tiruchurnalu man in S.V.N.S.Temple, Nagalapuram, Chittoor District w.e.f. 08.10.1997, the date on which the post of Tiruchurnalu man was sanctioned, but without monetary benefits from 08.10.1997 till 13.02.2013, the date on which the petitioner was appointed in the said post. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years as per G.O.Ms.No.1171 Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 16.12.1987 and calculate his service from 08.10.1997 for determining the retiral benefits. The said process shall be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
28) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence.
________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.12.2024 Ksp