LAWS(APH)-2023-2-152

M. BALAJI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On February 22, 2023
M. Balaji Naik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners 54 in number filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

(2.) Writ affidavit was deposed by petitioner No.1. In the affidavit it was contended inter alia that all the petitioners are working in different wings of respondent No.3 Temple as contract labour. As per particulars mentioned in the affidavit petitioner No.34 has been working as Driver since 1993 and petitioner No.35 has been working as Helper-Carpenter since 1999. All the petitioners have been working for more than ten to fifteen years and so on. Petitioners possess requisite qualification to work as contract labour. After satisfying education qualifications, respondent Nos.2 and 3 gave appointment to the petitioners. Petitioners filed W.P.Nos.5244, 5812 of 2018 and 6973 of 2018 seeking grant of time scale. Pursuant to the orders in the above writ petitions, petitioners were granted minimum time scale on par with permanent employees of last grade and services of some of the candidates were regularized. On a number of occasions, petitioners requested respondents to regularize their service. Since their representations did not evoke any favourable response, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed with regard to the fact that petitioners have been working in different wings of respondent No.3-Temple. It was contended inter alia that as per Sec. 35 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), every vacancy in the approved cadre strength whether permanent or temporary amongst, the office holders or servants of a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be filled by the Trustee with prior permission of the competent authority and the competent authority is Commissioner, Endowments. Petitioners have been working in respondent No.3 Temple on contract basis. Petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts. Commissioner, Endowments did not accord permission to respondent No.3 to create the posts and hence, petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services.