##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:32313

APHC010173492006 Bench Sr.No:-62 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506]

AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 20703 of 2006

M.V.Gani Raju and Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of ...Respondent(s)

A.P., Hyderabad and another.

**********

Advocate for Petitioner: Sri K.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri G V

SHIVAJI, learned counsel.

Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Sri V T M PRASAD, Sri KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA

SC For Endowments, GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 2^nd April, 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2^nd respondent in not paying the pay scales to the petitioners as per the revised PRC Scales extended to the employees working in the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam as per the orders of the Government while paying the same to the similarly situated employees of the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam which is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the revised pay scales, which has been

2 CGR, J.

W.P.No.20703 of 2

2 00 0 6

2 6:APHC:32313

paid to the employees of the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam and pass….”

2. Petitioners claim that they have been working in Sri Venugopala Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Geddanapalli, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District, which has been adopted by 2^nd respondent Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram. Petitioners were appointed in various posts such as Record Assistant, Clerk, Attender-cum-Watchman and Watchman-cum-Gardener at various points in time. The employees of 2^nd respondent Devasthanam stated to have been paid pay scales in consonance with the 1993 PRC Scales and later even the revised pay scales of 1999 were extended. However, petitioners though are working in the temple, which has been adopted by the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam, they are discriminated

and not extended the aforesaid benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to rely on proceedings, dated 30.10.2023, stated to have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, to the Executive Officer of the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam, inter alia, specifying that even the employees working in adopted temples were entitled for 1993 PRC scales and also the revised pay scales of 1999 subject to the condition that percentage of expenditure charges should not exceed 30% of the income of the temple and besides employees possessing requisite

3 CGR, J.

W.P.No.20703 of 2

2 00 0 6

2 6:APHC:32313

qualification to hold the post. As petitioners were not extended the

aforesaid benefits, they were constrained to file present writ petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1^st respondent and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Devasthanam, on the other hand, contended that employees, who are working in the institutions falling under Section 6(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Endowments Act”), are not entitled to claim salaries on par with the employees those who are working in the institutions falling under Section 6(a) of the Endowments Act. Therefore, as petitioners admittedly have been working in an adopted temple, which otherwise fall under Section 6(c) of the Endowments Act, would not be entitled to

the aforesaid pay scales.

5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of petitioners for extending appropriate pay scales requires to be considered by the competent authority i.e., 1^st respondent. In that view of the matter, petitioners are granted liberty to make a representation to the 1^st respondent espousing their grievance with regard to extension of appropriate pay scales within a period of two weeks from the date of re