P SESHACHALAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner is a clerk working in & temple. He has come forward with this Writ Petition claiming that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains 65 years and he prayed for the relief of quashing the letter dated 24-4-1993 issued by the Executive Officer of the temple.

(2.) The Advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.5752 dated 7-8-1974 pronounced by a Division Bench of this Courtin M. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Executive Officer, Sri Rameswaraswamy Temple, Achanta & another, and he contends that no rules were framed under Act No.30 of 1987 regarding conditions of service and he tries to rely upon the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1171, Endowments- I Department, dated 16th December, 1987 and claims that the age of superannuation for the clerk is 65 years and not 58 years, and hence the petitioner cannot be retired on his attaining the age of 58 years.

(3.) The argument' of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is a true mat under the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (in short Act No.30 of 1987), no rules were issued under sub-section (1) of Section 85, though with regard to office holders, covered by Section 35 sub-section (3), rules have been issued under G.O.Ms.No.1171 dated 16th December, 1987. One glance at the corresponding provisions in the old Act (i.e., Act No. 17 of 1966) and new Act (Act No.30 of 1987) and the Rules clearly shows that sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the new Act corresponds to sub-section(5) of Section 31 of the old Act. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued rules under Section 31 (5) of the. Act of 1966 in G.O.Ms.No 4478, dt.17-11-1986. Rule (8) fixes the minimum and maximum age limits. Rule (9) fixes the age of superannuation. That rule reads as follows:-