High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer Rc.No. A1|2BBBB|2O15 dated 31.01.2019 by declaring that the date of amalgamation of Sri Patha Laxmi Narasimha swamy Devasthanam, Peddireddygudem, Yadagirigutta with Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District, is '13.09.2004 i.e. the date of the order of the Commissioner of Endowments directing such amalgamation u/Sec. 145 of the Endowments Act and direct the respondents to revise and fix the inter se seniority of mine in the cadre of Senior Assistant by treating 13.09.2004 as the date of amalgamation of the Two Temples (Old and Main Temples) by declaring the inaction in this regard on the part of the respondents is non-application of mind, motivated, arbitrary, vindictive, illegal, and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and the letter and spirit of Sec. 145 of the Endowments Act 30/198. I.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order Rc.No. A1l2BB88l2O15 dated 31 .01.2019 of the respo nde nt-Executive Officer and direct the 3rd respondent to revise/re-fix the seniority of mine in the cadre of Senior Assistant in view of the categorical assertion of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments in his orders dated 23.06.2007 in R.P.No. 13/2006, 22.04.2014, 20.11.2018 and 23.01 .2019 wherein he stated that the date of amalgamation of the two temples -Old Temples and Main Temple, is 13.09.2004, at the earliest since the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.V.SURYANARAYANA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l & 2 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI K.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the lmplead Respondent Nos.4 to 8 : SRI C.SRINIVASA BABA The Court made the following ORDER / If I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 3092 0F 2019 OR DER: Challenging the order dated 31'01 '2019 of the Execulive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District (for brevity 'Devastharam') - 3rd respondent on the ground that date of amalgamation of Patha Gutta Temple and Main Temple i'e'' Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari temple is 07'06'2015' hence, petitioner is entitled to seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant from 07 .06.2O 15 by taking last place amongst the Senior Assistants as on that date, this Writ Petition is filed' Facts which are not in dispute are that 2. Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh' passed order dated 13.O9.2004, in exercise of the powers under Section 145 of the A.P' Charitable and Hindu Religious InstitutionsandEndowmentsAct,Act3ooflg8T(forshort'the Act') amalgamating Sri Patha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Peddireddygudem, Yadagirigutta with Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta' Nalgonda District. In these proceedings, it is directed that the Executive Officer, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam' 2 Yadagirigutta, shall take further action accordirgly. Vide order dated 24.O9.2004, the Executive Offrcer promoted petitioner as Senior Assistant, however, with a direction that he should join in Pathagutta Temple establishment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Revision Petition under Section 92 of the Act before the Commissioner of Endowments. The contention of petitioner was that since the two temples (Pathagutta temple and Devasthanam) are amalgamated on 13.09.2O04 and Pathagutta Temple is not in existence by the date of his promotion i.e. 24.O9.2OO4, therefore the direction to join in Pathagutta Temple is bad. The Commissioner of Endowments by order dated 23.06.2O07 held as under: " Sri Patha l.akshminarasimha Swamj. Devasthanam, Peddireddygudem, Yadagirigr.rtta stood amalgamated with Sri [,akshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta by virtue of the order issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad, in RC. No. A113651212OO4, dated 13.09.20O4. As per sub, section (2) of Section 145 of the APC & HRI and Endowments Act 30 of 1987, the institutions so amalgamated sha,ll be deemed to compromise a single institution and administered as if they were a single institution published under Section 6 of the Act. Hence, it is quite clear that for all purposes, Sri Patha [.akshminarasimia Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta should have been treated as part of Sri l,akshrninarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta and administered as if a single institution. Therefore, the action of the Respondent Executive Officer in treating the Revision Petitioner as an employee of Sri Patha lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Peddireddygudem, Yadagirigutta is patently iregular. In the t o I / I I I ) circumstance, the matter is remanded back to the Executive Ofhcer' Sri l^akshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta with a direction to fix the interse seniority of employees of both the institutions keating as a single institution and effect promotions " The Commissioner issued proceedings dated 22.04.2014 stating that orders were issued to amalgamate both temples under Section 145 of the Act; aggrieved by the same' the employees of Devasthanam filed Writ Petition No' 8662 of 2006, which was dismissed by order dated 26'11'2012 upholding amalgamation order dated l3'O9 '2OO4 ' Writ Appeal No. 3 of 2O13 filed thereagainst was disposed of on O3'O1 20i3 Commissioner's order does not suffer any irregularity; however, it is open to the illegality and/or Commissioner to reconsider the matter under Section 1a5(3) of the Act, if occasion arises' The Commissioner reconsidered the holding that the matter and passed the order as below: " In view of the above, taking into consideration the lineage' grievances of the employees of Sri Patha La-xmiNarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Pathagutta, it is hereby ordered to extend all the service ' retirement benefits to the staff of Sri Patha La-xmiNaraimha S-D'' Pathagutta duly placing the employees at appropriate place in the respective seniority tists as per eligibility, but they will occupy the last place in the respective cadres and to extend the service benefits on par with the employees of main temple duly treating the (2) temples as a single institution by de-notifying the Pathagutta Temple and to maintain accounts in common.for administrative convenience " 4 During the course of administration, the Commissioner issued Order dated OZ.06.20L5 regarding collection of challans and maintaining caih books, etcetera. The Executive Officer of Devasthanam issued Seniority List of Senior Assistants vide RC.No. At I lLOg l2OIl_2, dated 27.02.2016. In that seniorit5r list, petitioner was shown below the person who was promoted as Senior Assistant on O1.03.2015 (at Sl.No. 15), however, showing his date of promotion as 26.09.2004 (at Sl.No. 16). In the Note to these proceedings, it is stated that Senior Assistant posts at SL Nos. 16 and 17 are of pathagutta Temple; pathagutta temple was amalgamated in Devasthanam on O7.06.2O15, hence, they are shown as juniors at last in the present cadre strength. Challenging the seniority list, petitioner filed Revision under Section 9 1 of the Act before the Commissioner of Endowments, on 27.05.2016. Since the Commissioner has not passed any orders, he filed Writ petition No. 19407 ol 2OlZ, wherein interim order dated 15.06.2012 was passed directing the Commissioner of Endowments to consider and pass orders on the Revision preferred by petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Endowments passed orders uid_e Merno dated 2O. 1 l.2}1g reiterating his stand as stated in the order dated 23.06.2007 that the two temples were amalgamated by order dated

13.09.2004 and remains to be one single unit. He held that the date 07.06.2015 appears to be the date of internal proceedings of Devasthanam and the date 07.06.2015 adopted by the Execulive Of{icer, therefore, may need re-examination' The Executive Ofhcer was accordingly directed to reconsider the seniority list published in proceedings dated 27.02.2016 keeping in view the observations and pass fresh orders. The Commissioner clarified in his Memo dated

23.01.2019 in reply to the Executive Ofhcer's letter dated

28. I L2O 18, that his office issued amalgamation orders vide Rc.No. A1/3651212004, dated 14.O9.2OO4 in exercise of the powers vested under Section 145 of the Act. It is stated that no Rules were framed for implementation of the date of amalgamation and the orders issued by his office and the Government hold good. The Executive Oflicer passed the impugned order stating that the date of amalgamation of Patha Gutta Temple and Main Temple is 07.O6.2015, hence, petitioner is entitled to seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant from

07.06.2015 by taking last place amongst the Senior Assistants as on that date. .?,€ / r I 6

3. Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel representing Sri P.V. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the Commissioner passed order dated 13.09 .2OO4 amalgamating the two temples, the date of amalgamation is

13.09.2004 and from that date, there is only one temple viz., Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamyvari Temple, Yadagirigutta. As petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 24.09.2004, he should be givcn seniority from that date, however beiow the persons promoted as Senior Assistants on or before 24.O9 .2OO4. The ordcrs of the Commissioner dated, 07.06.2015 are only internal proceedings issued in day-to-day affairs and it cannot be construed as the date of amalgamation. This position was cleariy clarified by the Commissioner in his proceedings dated

23.06.2OO7, 22.O 4 .2O 1 4, 20. 7 7 .2O 1 8 an d 23.O 1.2O 1 9. Therefore the senioriry list issued by the Executive Officer dated

27.02.2016 showing petitioner as junior to a person who got promotion as Senior Assistant on 01.03.2015 though he was promoted on 26.09.2OO4 is bad and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits, on the other hand, that the Executive Officer filed counter afhdavit contending that though orders dated

13.09.2OO4 were passed amalgamating the two temples, there is t 7 I n no mention as to from which date amalgamation comes into force. The Commissioner issued orders on O7.06.2015 for running tJle temple, hence the said date is the date of amalgamation. It is also contended that petitioner has alternative remedies under Sections 91 and 92 of the Act.

5. The Commissioner hled counter which is ipsi sima uerbo of the counter of the E.O.

6. It is settled position that when two or more temples are amalgamated by the Commissioner of Endowments invoking the powers under Section i45 of the Act, they have to be treated as a single unit. Therefore, the point to be considered is 'from which date, the two temples were amalgamated'.

7. The issue is no more res integra. The Commissioner of Endowments passed order dated 13.09.2OO4 amalgamating Sri Patha Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Peddireddygudem, Yadagirigutta with Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, in exercise of powers under Section 145 of the Act. Challenging these proceedings Writ Petition No. 8662 of 2006 was filed, which was dismissed on 26.11.2012 uphoiding the proceedings dated 13.09.2OO4. In Writ Appeal No.3 of 2012, this Court, by order dated

03.01.20 13, held that there were no grounds to interfere with l.j I (-' the orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8662 of 2006. Further challenging the orders of the Commissioner d,ated, 23.06.2OO7 stating that by proceedings dated 13.O9.2OO4 the two Temples were amalgamated, certain employees filed Writ Petition No. 20612 ol 2OO7 and this Court by order dated 2l -06.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition. Thus, proceedings of Commissioner of Endowments dated 13.09 .2OO4 amalgamating two te mples attained finality. B. The contention of the Executive Officer that since the date from which amalgamation comes into force was not mentioned in the proceedings of the Commissioner dated l3.Og.2OO4, she took 07 .06.2015 as the date of amalgamation, has no legs to stand. It is the settled principle that when the date from u'hich a particular order comes into force is not specified, it is to be construed that the said order comes into force from the date of the order only. Purther, as clarified by the Commissioner, the order dated 07.06.2015 was issued, probably under Section 57 of the Act, during day-to-day affairs as to how challans have to be collected and cash books have to be maintained and this date cannot be said to be the date of amalgamation. I () I I I n g. The other contention of the Executive Officer is that petitioner has alternative remedy under Sections 91 and 92 of the Act, is also misconceived since the orders of the Commissioner dated 23.06.2007 ar.d 2O.ll-2018 were passed on the Revision Petitions hled under Sections 91 and 92 of the Act.

10. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Executive Officer of Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta , uide proceedings dated 31.01-2O 19 assigning seniority to petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant below a person whose date of promotion is 01.03.2015 though the date of promotion of petitioner is 26.09 .2004, treating O7.06'2015 as the date of amalgamation, is liable to be set aside and the same I I is accordingly set aside. 1 1 . Since the direction of the Commissioner in his proceedings dated 22.04.2014 that in the matter of seniority, the staff of Sri Patha Laxmi Narasimha Swamywari Devasthanam, Pathagutta shall take last place in the respective cadres as on the date of their promotion, is not challenged, the same had attained finality. Therefore, petitigner is to be shown in the seniority list of Senior Assistant below the employees of Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, who I o l0 were promoted as Senior Assistants on or before 26.09.2004. The Executive Officer, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, is directed to re_draft the seniority list of Senior Assistants showing petitioner below the employees of Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, yadagirigutta, who were promoted as Senior Assistant on or before 26.09.2004 and give petitioner all consequential benefits. t2. The Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

13. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE GOPY' SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSI A T REGISTRAR i Tro o FFICER -Government $;;ffii st'tu oriut'nsana at Hvderabad'J s'

1. The Principal Secretary to Government' Revgnye (Endowments) Department' 2. The Commi.'ion"' oii-nJJwments' ' g"ggrlrf,"ta, Tilak Road' HYderabad' 3. The Executiue otn"J'"Si ;G1tlNltTimha swamvvari Devasthanam' . Yi:t|;:lXtJ?3$rERB"3fl)|.#Jiii3: 'ii^ at Hvderabad [OUT] 3""'6c Llli,'Fv 6unvnr'TnRAYANA' Advocate [oPUCl . One CC to SRI K JAGAT'r ivioHnf'r REDDY' Advocate (oPUC) . il ;; iI sni c.snrxrvnsn enen' Advocate (oPuc) court ror the state or reransana of Telangana' 5 6 7 B SA BS Two CD CoPies b \ To t U { HE SrA 14: ( L) 2 { JAII ) 6 i 7 HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.3092 of 2019 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. Crt"P'* $6"r I