IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Commissioner’s powers under the Endowments Act do not allow for interference in the internal affairs of a Math, distinguishing it from a Temple.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra court appeal arises from the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9641 and 12908 of 2021.

2. The State has filed the appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the settled principle of law on equal pay for equal work is not followed. It is the specific case of the State that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others.

3. It is also the case of the state that the Commissioner of Endowments is empowered under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to vest the power to pass any orders to ensure that the Math property is administered properly and the income is spent for the purpose for which the Math was found.

4. The State has introduced certain memos vide No. 36021/32/Endowments-1 (2)/2018-1, dated 04.07.2018 and Memo No. 36021/32/Endowments-1 (2)/2018, dated 05.12.2018. The Special Commissioner and Member Secretary of D.P Endowments Department, addressed a memo vide Rc. No. DP1/25031/3/2020, dated 19.04.2021 to the Manager of the Respondent/writ petitioner.

5. The Commissioner basing on the above referred memos intended to regulate the payments to the contract employees of the Math and directed the Manager of the respondent to implement the instructions relating to extending minimum time scale in respect of contract/casual employees.

6. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said proceedings the respondent filed the Writ Petition No. 9641 of 2021 and one of the employee of Math filed the Writ Petition No. 12908 of 2021 seeking a declaration of the action of the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the manager of the respondent herein in not extending the minimum time scale of pay attached to the Last Grade Service and seeking implementation of the directions of the Special Commissioner issued vide the proceedings referred above.

7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Math and held that the memos dated 04.07.2018, 05.12.2018 and 19.04.2021 are inapplicable to the petitioner/Math and consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the employee of the Math.

8. The learned Single Judge has considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others and held that the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the various provisions of the Endowments Act and held that the State could not have exercised its unfound right of regulating the affairs of Math.

9. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the attempt of the state is only to ensure payment of equal work for equal pay and ensure compliance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others is scrupulously followed.

10. The learned Government Pleader also states that the powers of the Commissioner to issue appropriate orders under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 cannot be misinterpreted by the Math. It is also submitted that the memos issued by the Government were with a specific purpose of ensuring the recommendations made by the Expert Committees for implementation of equal pay for equal work.

11. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that implementation of the principle of equal pay for equal work by the respondent/Math is in tune with the Labour Legislations and that it is the duty of the State to ensure such compliance by all the temples and religious institutions. It is also contended that the powers of the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act, cannot be questioned as long as the statute provides such powers.

12. Sri. C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the