IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
B. Srinivasulu, S/o. Late Venkateswarulu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department and Others. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.11982 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 - Section 35 - Declaring the action of the respondents in not extending time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant to the petitioner in the establishment of 3rd respondent temple - Rejecting petitioner claim as bad, illegal, arbitrary and void and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently set aside the proceedings- Held, petitioner has been working in respondent No.3-Temple since more than one decade and as petitioner has been making representations to respondents authorities to consider his case for regularization, respondents, keeping in view decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, shall pass reasoned order as to whether petitioner is eligible for regularization or not, within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petitioner is also allowed to place relevant material before authorities - Writ petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:-
2. In the affidavit it was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was appointed as contract employee in the year 2003. Petitioner successfully completed 17 years of service in the Temple. Petitioner passed B.A. and he has been discharging the duties of Junior Assistant. Earlier petitioner filed W.P.No.3787 of 2018 seeking considering his case for regularization. This Court passed interim order, dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 directing the respondents to pay minimum time scale to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said interim order, Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple issued proceedings extending the minimum time scale of Rs.13,000/- in the last grade service on 07.09.2018. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation dated 05.12.2019 seeking extension of regular time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant as granted to other similarly situated persons. Petitioners’ representation was forwarded to respondent No.3 on 19.01.2020 and respondent No.3 rejected petitioner’s case stating that there is ban on regularization vide G.O.Rt.No.1997 dated 18.10.2005 and extension of scale is contrary to Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888 dated 08.12.2000. Separate proceedings will be issued to revise three cases relied by the petitioner vide proceedings in R.C.No.C1/1105064/2018, dated 06.03.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended inter alia that respondent No.3-Temple is published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and the same is under administrative control of the endowments Department. Executive Officer was appointed under Section 29 of the Act and has been administering and managing the day to day affairs of the said Temple. The employees of respondent-Temple are not government employees and they are Temple employees. They are being paid from and out funds of respondent no.3-Temple subject to limitations under Section 57 of the Act 30 of 1987. Petitioner’s wage has been enhanced from time to time. While matter stood thus, petitioner filed W.P.No.3787 of 2018 with a prayer to extend minimum time scale to him attached to the corresponding post (Junior Assistant) or equivalent post and to declare that petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service as Junior Assistant or equivalent post in the existing vacancies or future vacancies with all consequential benefits including the monitory benefits on par with others who were regularized. Interim order was passed on 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 which reads follows:
4. Pursuant to the said interim order, basing on memo of respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.A1/1059511/2018, dated 20.07.2018, respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/3766/2018 dated 07.09.2018 extending minimum time sc
Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the regularization of the petitioner's service based on qualifications, recommendations, and previous rulings, desp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization and absorption in sanctioned posts after working for more than ten years without the benefit or prot....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, and the applicability of this provision to the petitioner's case.
Temporary or casual employment does not confer legal rights to regularization; adherence to proper recruitment processes is mandatory for permanent appointments.
The High Court directed the regularization of long-serving employees based on the principles established in Umadevi's case, emphasizing the need for lawful government discretion in employment matters....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.