APHC010414932002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13766 of 2002 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3506] M.ananda ...Petitioner Vs. His Holiness Sri Tiruvengada Pedda Jeeyangar Swamy and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: O UDAYA KUMAR Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD), C SRINIVASA BABA, . CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 20th November 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with all attendant and consequent benefits with interest at the rate fo 18 per annum w e f 1101993 till this date by implementing the orders of this Honble Court dt 17 11 1997 in W P No 24042/1997 and affirmed by a Divsional Bench of this Honble Court vide order dt 16 12 1997 in W A No 1407/1997 and pass….” 2 2. Heard Sri C.V.S.S. Sarma, learned counsel representing Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Srinivas Baba, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3. None appears for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Ginishi Clerk (Parakamani Clerk) by the 1st respondent in Khata No.35/1986, dated 05.12.1986 and it was stated that such appointment later came to be confirmed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings in L.Dis.No.153/82202/86, dated 26.12.1986. The petitioner, after putting in five years of service as clerk, is stated to have been promoted as U.D. Manager of the 1st respondent-Mutt with effect from 01.08.1991, in the vacancies arising on account of retirement of one Mr. B. Venugopala Chari, Head Clerk. However, the petitioner was stated to be abruptly disengaged from services by the 1st respondent on 30.09.1993. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent-Endowment under Section 37 of the Act 39/1987 and by order dated 18.08.1987, the said appeal has been allowed by holding that since the order of termination did not proceed with any 3 show-cause and the same tantamounted to violation of principles of natural justice, the 1st respondent was given opportunity to issue fresh notice and take up appropriate action after conducting enquiry. 4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent assailed the said order in W.P.No.24042/1997 and the same came to be dismissed by confirming the order of the 3rd respondent vide order dated 17.09.1997. While dismissing the said writ petition, it was made clear that the 1st respondent was entitled to issue fresh notice before terminating the services of the writ petitioner, if the circumstances so warrant. The 1st respondent, dissatisfied with the outcome in the writ petition, preferred W.A.No.1407/1997, even the same ultimately came to be dismissed on 16.12.1997. While dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench also observed that the 1st respondent-Mutt was at liberty to proceed against the writ petitioner in accordance with law, if it intended to initiate any enquiry. However, the 1st respondent neither initiated any fresh proceedings nor stated to have reinstated the petitioner back into service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking for a direction to reinstate him back 4 into service with attendant and consequent benefits with effect from 01.10.1993. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that even according to the petitioner, he was appointed by the 1st respondent as Ginishi Clerk (Parakamani Clerk) and was later promoted as U.D. Manager. Therefore, for all purposes, the 1st respondent would be the employer but not the 2nd respondent and it is denied that their exists employer and employee relationship between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent for claiming any service benefits, much less as claimed in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Ginishi Clerk (Parakamani Clerk) by the 1st respondent and was later promoted as U.D. Manger, the said appointment since even approved by the concerned officer of the 2nd respondent and even salaries were paid by it, for all purposes, it would be the 2nd respondent who is the main employer. Therefore, even reinstatement and payment of all service benefits have to be met by only the 2nd respondent, but not by the 1st respondent. 5 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, opposed the aforesaid submissions by contending that there is no employer-employee relationship between the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent and further that even according to the petitioner, initial appointment and also the promotion was only by the 1st respondent and the substantive termination proceedings were also issued by the 1st respondent, which was challenged before the 3rd respondent-commissioner eventually. Since all these proceedings, including the appeal preferred before the 3rd respondent, demonstrate that the 1st respondent alone was claimed to be the employer, the petitioner is not justified even arraying the 2nd respondent as party to the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable in so far as the 2nd respondent is concerned. 8. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. 9. The pleadings in the writ petition would go to show that the writ petitioner was initially appointed with 1st respondent by its proceedings dated 05.12.1998 and was later promoted as UD Manager by the very same 1st respondent with effect from01.08.1991 and even the termination order dated 30.09.1993 6 as issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner assailed the said order before the 3rd respondent commissioner, which ultimately came to the set aside with liberty to the 1st respondent to initiate fresh proceedings. Even in the appeal the claim was only against the 1st respondent but not the 2nd respondent. Material on record clearly discloses that for all practical purposes the petitioner was all through under the control and management of the 1st respondent. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment made by the 1st respondent has been approved by the concerned officer of 2nd respondent, the same if so facto would not mean nothing to say that the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd respondent and he would have to be treated an employee of the 2nd respondent. However, the claim of reinstatement and the payment of consequential benefits qua the 1st respondent is justified. 10. This Court, in the earlier round of litigation, both in W.P.No.24042/1997 and W.A.No.1407/1997, granted liberty to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings, if it is so desires, after providing opportunity of hearing to pass appropriate orders. However, the 1st respondent is stated to have chosen not to initiate any of such proceedings meaning thereby the order of 7 termination as set aside by the 3rd respondent has attained finality. Therefore, the petitioner is required to be reinstated into service with all attending benefits as claimed and any consequential claims to be met with by the 1st respondent and not the 2nd respondent. 11. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed, directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all attending and consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 20.11.2025 ANS 8 149 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13766/2002 Date: 20.11.2025 ANS