APHC010583702016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 41608/2016 Between: Mutyala Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition has been instituted by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue a Writ order or Orders, more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not considering repeated representations of the petitioner for transfer of services from the 5th respondent temple to any another suitable temple in the state by increasing the pay scale as per The Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions And Endowments Archakas And Other Office Holders And Servants Qualifications And Emoluments Rules, 2001 under G.O.Ms.No.261 Revenue Endowments Department dated 20.05.2002 2 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to transfer the services of the petitioner from the 5th Respondent temple to any another suitable temple in state….” 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that presently he has no instructions from the petitioner. 3. Conversely, Smt. Anne Devi Subhashini, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-Temple, draws the attention of this Court to the specific and categorical averments asserted in the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent-Executive Officer on 09.02.2017. For the sake of comprehensive view, the relevant para in the counter is extracted herunder:- “……6. It is submitted that in reply to para no. 6 of the Writ affidavit is concerned, they are put to strict proof as the petitioner has not made any representation for transfer to another temple, he has made only to extend the PRC, the 3rd respondent enhanced the salary to the petitioner from 3000/- to 4500/- per month. Vide D.Dis.No: B1/9192/2013 Adm/ Dt:22/10/2014 issuing enhancement orders from Rs. 3000/- to 4500/- per month with effect from 01/1/2014 with directions to the 5th respondent to submit proposals for extension of pay scales to the Bhajantri whenever the financial of temple permits to the 3rd respondent (Deputy Commissioner). Since the establishment charges exceeds 30% above. Now he is being paid Rs. 10000/- per month. The petitioner was appointed as "Contract Dolu Vidwan" by the 2nd respondent vide RC.No.A1/39867/2007 dt. 15.11.2008 and allotted to the 5th respondent Temple and accordingly the present Respondent appointed him. The petitioner completed the probation period of 3 2 years by 24.11.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner gave representation to this 5th respondent requesting to grant pay scale in terms of GOMS.No.261. on the proposals of the Executive officer (5th respondent) the deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. Kurnool. 3rd respondent vide D.Dis No. B1/9192/2013 Adm/ Dt: 22/10/2014 enhanced the salary from 3000/- to 4500/- per month……” 4. The sum and substance of the case as is projected by the 5th respondent is that the petitioner was appointed as ‘Contract Dolu Vidwan’ by the 2nd respondent proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/39867/2007 dated 15.11.2008 and he was allotted to the 5th respondent-Temple. It is also mentioned that the petitioner had successfully completed his probation period on 24.11.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner preferred representation to the 5th respondent Temple authorities, requesting them to grant pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.261. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department-3rd respondent, by perceiving all the facts and circumstances vide D.Dis.No.B1/9192/2013 Adm/ dated 22.10.2014, enhanced the salary from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month and the said salary was escalated from time to time. At last, as on the date of the filing of the counter, the petitioner was paid Rs.10,000/- per month. 4 5. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is closed by making the counter of the 5th respondent as a part of the record. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 28.03.2025 GVK 5 186 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.41608 of 2016 Date: 28.03.2025 GVK