V LOKACHARYULU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents, in not fixing the salary in time scale on par with the superintendent as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1171 Revenue (Endowments -1) Department, dated 16-12-1987. The few facts that arenecessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Vada Pandit on 13-7-1980 in Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Annapureddi palli, Khammam District, which is admittedly an institution registered under Section 6(b) of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) on a consolidated pay of Rs.300 P.M. initially. Pursuant to the said order he reported to duty on 1-8-1980. After some time, he was also given time scale of pay with effect from -1-4-1985, by the order of Deputy Commissioner. Two months thereafter, he was transferred to Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Chikkadapally. Again he was transferred to Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Vari Devastanam, Yadagirigutta on 30-12-1989 which is admittedly an institution registered under 6(a) of the Act. Once again, by an order dated 30-3-1990 he was transferred to Seetharamaswamy Vari Devastanam, Bhadrachalam and he reported to duty on 14-5-1990 as Vedapandit. Admittedly 5 Vedapandits are working in this institution including the petitioner. While the other 4 Vedapandits are being paid time scale of pay of Rs. 1330-60-1930-70-2630 which is equivalent to scale of pay payable to Superintendent, the said benefit was not extended to the petitioner on the ground that he is not having the necessary qualifications. While this writ petition is pending the Commissioner transferred the petitioner on 23-4-1995 to his original institution where he was first appointed i.e. Annapureddipalli. A separate writ petition was filed and this court while admitting the W.P. on 28-2-1995 ordered status quo. By that time the petitioner joined in the new station and the status quo order worked out itself. In those circumstances, the petitioner did not press theother W.P. and the same was dismissed. Now the question to be decided in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to salary on par with the Superjntendent working in 6(a) institution by virtue of his posting to 6(a) institution as Vedapandit? Admittedly, he was not having qualification. But while the petitioner relies upon proviso to guidelines issued by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 33(3) of the Actfor transfer of the employee of the institution for claiming salary attached to the post as Vedapandit, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification, and he cannot be paid the salary as claimed by him and his pay was in fact revised in the cadre of Junior Assistant by giving him Special Grade Post on completion of 8 years of service. Pursuant to that he was drawing salary of Rs. 2195/- including all allowances. The counsel for the respondent tried to sustain the action of the respondent by bringing to" the notice of the Court the various orders 1996(1)F.R. F "8 issued by the Government from time to time by contending that these G.Os. are not applicable to the employees who are working in the institutions registered under Section 6(b) of the Act, as and when they are transferred to institutions registered under Section 6(a) of the Act. The counsel for the respondent further contended that the other Veda Parayanadars were appointed under G.O.Ms.No. 1171 Revenue (Endowments-I) dated 16-12-1987, where the petitioner was transferred from the institution registered under Section 6(b) of the Act, as such, he cannot claim the salary payable to other Vedaparayanadars. The provision on which the petitioner is relying is extracted hereunder:

(3.) It is evident from the above proviso that as and when an employee is transferred to an institution where higher scales of pay are paid to the same category of employees, he shall be paid the same scale of pay on par with the employees working in that institution as long as he works and continues to discharge the same functions. It is not the case of the respondent that the duties performed by the petitioner are different from the other Parayanadars. As such, I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the counsel for the respondent and I hold that the petitioner is entitled to receive the same emoluments on par with the other Parayanadars working in the institution registered under 6(a) of the Act for the period he worked.