Sri Pulakandam Paradhasaradhi Sarma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.29712 OF 2018 Dated:29.08.2018 Between:

Sri Pulakandam Pardhasaradhi Sarma, S/o. Lat eSri P. Surayanarayana, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Occ: Archaka, R/o.6-6-5/1, Peethala Veedhi, Chinawaltair, Vasakhapatnam .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.29712 OF 2018 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

Petitioner was appointed as Archaka in the 5th respondent - Temple in the year 2001. According to petitioner, he was deputed to the 6th respondent - Temple in the year 2008 and has been continuing in the said Temple. While so, by proceedings, dated 08.01.2018, petitioner was repatriated to the 5th respondent - Temple. Challenging the said proceedings, this Writ Petition is filed.

3.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no sufficient income in the 5th respondent - Temple and petitioner developed the 6th respondent - Temple with all his hard work and therefore there is no justification to repatriate him to the 5th respondent - Temple after more than ten years. 4.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 - Temples submits that there is a requirement of second Archaka in the 5th respondent - Temple, as it has seven deities and it is difficult for one Poojari to look after all the sister Temple units. 5.

Admittedly, the parent unit of the petitioner is the 5th respondent - Temple and he has been working only on deputation in the 6th respondent - Temple. According to Fundamental Rule 110, a person can be on deputation for a maximum period of five years, whereas in the case on hand, petitioner was on deputation for double the period.

6.

Further, as the petitioner was earlier working in the 5th respondent - Temple and his repatriation is to the parent unit, the order of repatriation cannot be interfered merely on the ground that petitioner worked long time in the 6th respondent - Temple. 7.

Having regard to the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed. ____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:29.08.2018 KH