G. Gangi Reddy and ors. Vs. the Custodian-deputy Commissioner of Endowments of Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orders. dasaradha rama reddy, j.1. all these writ petitions raise a common point and hence are disposed of by a common order. the question raised in these writ petitions is regarding the age of superannuation of employees of sri swamy hathiramjee mutt, tirupati (hereinafter referred to as 'the mutt'). the petitioners in w.p. nos. 11749 of 1990 and 1158 of 1995 are junior assistants who completed 58 years of age, while all the petitioners in other two writ petitions are class iv employees, who have completed 60 years of age as on today. their contention is that the employees of the mutt are not governed by fundamental rules or andhra pradesh public employment (regulation of age of superannuation) act 23 of 1984 and that they work at the pleasure of the mahant. their further contention is that it is only the mahant who can terminate their services and not the custodian who is merely kept in-charge. it may be stated here that in all the writ petitions, the impugned orders do not refer to any act or rule except in w.p. no. 4754 of 1988 wherein reference is made to act 23 of 1984.2. in the counter filed in w.p.no. 4754 of 1988, the custodian of the mutt relied on act 23 of 1984. but in the additional counter filed in that writ petition and also in the counters filed in the other three writ petitions, the custodian relies on rule 9 of the andhra pradesh charitable and hindu religious institutions and endowments office holders and servants (conditions of service) rules, 1983 (for short 'the rules'). these rules were framed by the government of andhra pradesh under section 107 read with sub-section (5) of section 31 of the andhra pradesh charitable and hindu religious institutions and endowments act, 1966. the petitioners have filed reply stating that rule 9 is not applicable to the employees of the mutt.3. the first contention of sri p.s. narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that rule 9 is not applicable to petitioners as they hold office at the pleasure of the mahant. as per rule 2, these rules apply to office holders and servants of all charitable and hindu religious institutions and endowments. as per rule 2(d), 'office holder or servant' includes a person who holds an office to which an inam granted, confirmed or recognised by the government is attached or who is remunerated in kind or in cash or in any other manner by the institution concerned and who is either a whole time or a part-time functionary'. as per rule 9, the age of retirement of any person other than holder of hereditary office or ultharai servant is 58 years while ultharai servant and attenders have to retire on completion of 60 years of age. the act 17 of 1966 was repealed by act 30 of 1987 and by virtue of section 155 (2)(a) of act 30 of 1987, all rules made under the repealed act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the new act be deemed to have been made by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provision of new act and shall have effect unless they are modified, cancelled or superseded. it is the admitted case of the parties that the rules framed under the old act are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new act. it is also admitted that the mutt is registered under section 6(d) of the act 30 of 1987. thus, as per rule 9, petitioners in w.p. no. 11749 of 1990 and w.p. no. 1158 of 1995 are liable to be retired on their attaining 58 years while the petitioners in w.p. nos. 4754 of 1988 and w.p. no. 7062 of 1989 are liable to be retired at the age of 60 years.4. the next contention of sri p.s. narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that even assuming that rule 9 applies, it is only the mahant mat can pass any order and not the custodian, who is only kept in-charge and cannot take any policy decision. there is no policy decision involved here and what all the custodian has done is to give notice to the petitioners that they will be retiring on their attaining the age of superannuation. it is then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case rule 9 applies, all the benefits applicable to the other employees of the religious institutions are to be given to the petitioners. the petitioners have not sought any relief in this behalf and hence it is not necessary to decide that question in these writ petitions.5. thus, all the writ petitions are dismissed. interim directions granted already stand vacated. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J.

1. All these writ petitions raise a common point and hence are disposed of by a common order. The question raised in these writ petitions is regarding the age of superannuation of employees of Sri Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt'). The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11749 of 1990 and 1158 of 1995 are Junior Assistants who completed 58 years of age, while all the petitioners in other two writ petitions are Class IV employees, who have completed 60 years of age as on today. Their contention is that the employees of the Mutt are not governed by Fundamental Rules or Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act 23 of 1984 and that they work at the pleasure of the Mahant. Their further contention is that it is only the Mahant who can terminate their services and not the Custodian who is merely kept in-charge. It may be stated here that in all the writ petitions, the impugned orders do not refer to any Act or Rule except in W.P. No. 4754 of 1988 wherein reference is made to Act 23 of 1984.

2. In the counter filed in W.P.No. 4754 of 1988, the custodian of the Mutt relied on Act 23 of 1984. But in the additional counter filed in that writ petition and also in the counters filed in the other three writ petitions, the custodian relies on Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (for short 'the Rules'). These rules were framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Under Section 107 read with Sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. The petitioners have filed reply stating that Rule 9 is not applicable to the employees of the Mutt.

3. The first contention of Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that Rule 9 is not applicable to petitioners as they hold office at the pleasure of the Mahant. As per Rule 2, these Rules apply to office holders and servants of all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. As per Rule 2(d), 'Office holder or Servant' includes a person who holds an office to which an Inam granted, confirmed or recognised by the Government is attached or who is remunerated in kind or in cash or in any other manner by the Institution concerned and who is either a whole time or a part-time functionary'. As per Rule 9, the age of retirement of any person other than holder of hereditary office or ultharai servant is 58 years while ultharai servant and attenders have to retire on completion of 60 years of age. The Act 17 of 1966 was repealed by Act 30 of 1987 and by virtue of Section 155 (2)(a) of Act 30 of 1987, all rules made Under the repealed Act shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the new Act be deemed to have been made by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provision of new Act and shall have effect unless they are modified, cancelled or superseded. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Rules framed under the old Act are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. It is also admitted that the Mutt is registered Under Section 6(d) of the Act 30 of 1987. Thus, as per Rule 9, petitioners in W.P. No. 11749 of 1990 and W.P. No. 1158 of 1995 are liable to be retired on their attaining 58 years while the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4754 of 1988 and W.P. No. 7062 of 1989 are liable to be retired at the age of 60 years.

4. The next contention of Sri P.S. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that even assuming that Rule 9 applies, it is only the Mahant mat can pass any order and not the Custodian, who is only kept in-charge and cannot take any policy decision. There is no policy decision involved here and what all the Custodian has done is to give notice to the petitioners that they will be retiring on their attaining the age of superannuation. It is then contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in case Rule 9 applies, all the benefits applicable to the other employees of the Religious Institutions are to be given to the petitioners. The petitioners have not sought any relief in this behalf and hence it is not necessary to decide that question in these writ petitions.

5. Thus, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim directions granted already stand vacated. No costs.