Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
P.Uma Maheswara Sastry, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department – Respondent
W.P.No.21761 of 2020
Decided on : 05-10-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.V.Sasidhar
For the Respondent: K.Madhava Reddy
Point of law: It is now axiomatic that when a legal fiction is incorporated in a statute, the court has to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created. After ascertaining the purpose, full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion. The court has to assume all the facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to giving effect to the fiction. The legal effect of the words “as if he were” in the definition of “owner” in Section 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act read with Section 2(1) of the Mines Act is that although the petitioners were not the owners, they being the contractors for the working of the mine in question, were to be treated as such though, in fact, they were not so.
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 145- Remuneration is not payable - Claim equal pay for equal work - Petitioner that where petitioner is serving was adopted by respondent Section 145 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for short 1987 Act and consequently he would be entitled to same pay as other serving in respondent-temple by virtue of deeming provision in Section 145(2) of 1987 Act and on account of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which mandated equal pay for equal work - Respondent executive officer of respondent temple has filed a counter in which he took the stand that Section 145(2) of Act only provides for management of adopted institution by adoptee institution as a single entity but that could not mean that both adopted institution and adoptee institution have become one institution employees of both institutions would be paid same salaries and given same service conditions.
Finding of the court :
Where Commissioner finds that a religious institution is in trouble and needs outside assistance to revive itself either on account of that due to financial difficulties it is not capable of maintaining itself or there is a necessity of improving management or administration of said institution or endowment Commissioner can direct takeover of such an institution or endowment by any other institution of endowment - This takeover is for purposes of assisting troubled institution till it can run itself without outside help - This takeover can be in two forms - It would be either by way of amalgamation or by way of adoption - Further initial takeover itself need not be a complete takeover as order of takeover can place restrictions and conditions in relation to takeover of institution - Section 145 has been introduced for purposes of protecting financially weak or badly managed institutions till they are able to stand on their own feet - Purpose of Section 145 is not a permanent merger of Institutions.
Result : Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
The petitioner is working as an Archaka in Sri Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Mandiram, Gulabchand Street, I town, Vijayawada. He is being paid a sum of Rs.12,700/- under various heads, as his monthly salary. Sri Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Mandiram was adopted, under the provisions of Section 145 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the 1987 Act”) by the 3rd Respondent, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vijayawada. In view of the said adoption, the petitioner had made a representation to the 4th respondent, who is the executive officer of the 3rd Respondent, to pay him a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month on par with the other Archakas, who were serving in the 3rd Respondent. This claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.F2/3508/18 dated 28.10.2020, on the ground that the said remuneration is not payable as per circular No. Rc.No.A1/1726091/118, dated 24.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Mandiram, where the petitioner is serving, was adopted by the 3rd respondent Devasthanam under Section 145 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, the 1987 Act”) and consequently, he would be entitled to the same pay as other Archakas serving in the 3rd respondent-temple by virtue of the deeming provision in Section 145(2) of the 1987 Act and on account of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1978 SC 988, which mandated equal pay for equal work.
3. The 4th respondent, executive officer of the 3rd respondent temple, has filed a counter, in which he took the stand that Section 145(2) of the 1987 Act only provides for management of the adopted institution by the adoptee institution as a single entity but that could not mean that both the adopted institution and the adoptee institution have become one institution wherein the employees of both the institutions would be paid the same salaries and given same service conditions. It is further submitted by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent that the Judgment of Jagjit Singh’s case would apply only when the petitioner is to be treated as an employee of the 3rd respondent temple and then he can claim equal pay for equal work done by other employees of the 3rd respondent-temple.
4. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent would rely upon the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Mahashtra, (1975) 2 SCC page 22, Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs. ICDS Ltd, AIR 2007 SC page 168 State of Karnataka Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC page 362 to contend that the submissions of Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner require to be rejected as a legal fiction or a deeming provision in Section 145(2) of the 1987 Act cannot be taken to have amalgamated the establishments of the adopted and adoptee temples into one unified establishment.
Consideration of the Court:
5. The controversy in the present Writ petition is on the interpretation of section 145 of the 1987 Act which reads as follows:
Adoption or amalgamation of institutions and Endowments:-
(1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that any religion institution is not capable of maintaining out of its funds, he may, in the interest of proper management of administration, subject to such restrictions and conditions as he may deem fit, direct the amalgamation or as the case may be, the adoption of such religious institution by any other religious institution having similar objects and capable of managing such institution and there upon the trustee of the institution to which it is amalgamated or by which it is adopted shall maintain and administer such insti
