APHC010298282013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No:8569 OF 2013 Between: M.Srinivasulu …Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary To Government Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And two others. …Respondents WRIT PETITION No.8641 of 2013 Between: K.Mohan Kumar … Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And two others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Endowments. -2- The Court made the following common order: 1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the in action on the part of the 1st respondent in considering the recommendations of the 3rd respondent for payment of remuneration to the petitioners, who were performing the duties of Paricharika, in pursuance of the proceedings dated 08.11.2010 and 10.12.2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually online submits that both the petitioners have been rendering the services as Paricharikas in the 3rd respondent- devasthanam during the year 1996 and 1999 respectively. The petitioners made representations seeking regularization of their services and to fix the salary. The 3rd respondent has considered the request of the petitioners and issued proceedings for utilizing the services of the petitioners on monthly remuneration basis. Though the proceedings are issued, the petitioners were not paid any amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 10.12.2010 has listed out the names of 14 persons, who were working as -3- paricharikas in the devasthanam and has send a request to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, for according permission, for utilizing the services of 14 persons as Paricharikas on contract basis on payment of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is also submitted that the petitioners were also working as Paricharikas. However their names were not mentioned in the list forwarded by the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also equally entitled for being considered, for utilizing their services as Paricharikas on consolidated payment basis. It is submitted that the respondents have without any basis denied granting the same relief as was extended to 14 paricharikas vide proceedings dated 10.12.2010. 5. The 3rd respondent - devasthanam has filed its counter and strangely the counter has not responded to any of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions. The 2nd paragraph of the counter relates to the prayer as sought for by the petitioner and the 3rd paragraph of the counter is only states that there was no free service system in the 3rd -4- respondent devasthanam and that the free service system was stopped long back. With this cryptic counter, the respondents have deemed acceptance of the averments made in the writ petition. Without denial of any of the averments raised by the petitioners, the cryptic counter of the respondents would imply that the claim of the petitioners was genuinely not considered by the respondents without any valid reason. 6. The 3rd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioners for utilizing their services as paricharikas on par with other paricharikas, whose services were utilized under the proceedings, dated 10.12.2010, and extend the monetary benefit to the petitioners and issue appropriate proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed off. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV