K GANESH Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short 'the Devasthanam) has acted arbitrarily and illegally in not implementing the orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.172 Revenue (Endowments-III) Department dated 7-2-1997. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent Devasthanam to reinduct and absorb him with effect from 7.2.1997, (i.e., from the date of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.172 dated 7.2.1997), with all consequential benefits from that date.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have been continuously engaged as a volunteer by the respondent Devasthanam from 6.11.1984 for a period of 376 days. Petitioner submits that he had sought for regularization of his services and, since his request was not acceded to, he along with other similarly placed volunteers had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.No.3579 of 1991, seeking regularization of their services. This Court, by order dated 3.4.1991, disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to give the petitioners therein an opportunity to prove their claims before the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam and, in the event they were able to establish their claims, to consider their case for appointment. Pursuant thereto, the Devasthanam issued memo dated 10.1.1992 informing that the petitioner did not work in the Devasthanam from April 1985 to November, 1985. The petitioner then submitted a representation pointing out that many of his juniors with lesser qualifications, and having worked for lesser number of days, were continued and absorbed in the services of the Devasthanam and that he was discriminated against on unreasonable grounds. The petitioner was given a personal hearing by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam on 9.11.1993. Petitioner would contend that he met the Executive Officer and produced documentary evidence to show that he had rendered 376 days continuous and uninterrupted service and that he had also furnished a list of juniors permanently absorbed in the Devasthanam, some of whom were even promoted to higher posts. The petitioner claims to have also referred to the proceedings of the Devasthanam dated 9.3.1993 wherein backwages are said to have been paid to 75 volunteers even after their services were disengaged. Pursuant thereto, the matter is said to have been placed before the TTD Trust Board which, according to the petitioner, did not take any decision in the matter. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15.4.1994 seeking his reinduction into the Devasthanam's service and was informed, vide proceedings dated 3.5.1994, that the T.T.D.Trust Board, in its resolution No.1208 dated 30/31-3-1994, had examined and rejected his case in view of Act 2 of 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, (which he claims to be an appeal under Section 120 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as Act 30 of 1987), to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Endowments-III Department on 16.8.1994 who, vide order dated 26.5.1995, rejected the petitioner's request.

(3.) Thereafter, on a representation being submitted by the petitioner on 13.11.1996, (which he claims to be a review under Section 122 of Act 30 of 1987), requesting reconsideration of their order dated 26.10.1995, the Government, in its order in G.O.Rt. No. 172 dated 07.02.1997, took note of the report of the Executive Officer that the petitioner had worked as a paid volunteer from November, 1984 to November, 1985 and that his juniors were continued in T.T.D some of whom were permanently absorbed in T.T.D. service as they were continuing on the date of absorption. The Government, on careful examination of the petitioner's case, observed that he had worked as a volunteer in 1985, that it would result in injustice if he was not re-inducted into service and that the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 would not apply to his case as it could not be treated as a fresh appointment. Considering the petitioner's past service and the hardship caused to him the government directed that he be re-inducted and absorbed into the service of the T.T.D. on humanitarian grounds on par with his juniors. However the intervening period, from the date of termination till his reappointment, was not to be counted for any purpose like salary, seniority, promotion, pension etc. The petitioner's representation dated 10.2.1997, requesting the Devasthanam to issue suitable posting orders, pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.172 dated 17.2.1995, was of no avail necessitating his having to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.