G. Puneeth Kumar, Krishna Dist v. Commr Of Endowments, Hyd And Another

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.29859 of 2011 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service and for appointment as Record Assistant on permanent basis in the existing vacancy or immediate future vacancy in the 2nd respondentDevasthanam by duly extending the consequential benefit of pay and allowances attached to the said post.

2.

Heard Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1st respondent and Smt.K.Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Temple.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as NMR worker in the year 2003 in the 2nd respondentTemple and since then he has been discharging his duties. His grievance is that though he has been working for more than 15 years, his case is not being considered for regularisation. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent-Temple has recommended the case of the petitioner for regular absorption on 24.02.2014 to the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent has not considered the said recommendation made by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has also forwarded the cadre strength of the department, where the petitioner is working, to the 1st respondent on 16.10.2013, but the said recommendations/proposals of the 2nd respondent are pending before the 1st respondent.

4.

The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has contended that the case of the petitioner will be considered as and when the 2nd respondent-Temple takes up the process of regularisation of services of NMR workers and the petitioner is placed at serial No.49 and his case will be considered in due course.

5.

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the recommendations made by the 2nd respondent-Temple on 16.10.2013 and 24.02.2014 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 10th SEPTEMBER, 2018 Tsr