P. Seshachalam vs The Executive Officer, Sri Varadaraja Swamy Temple and Others

Jagannadha Raju, J.—The Writ Petitioner is a clerk working in a temple. He has come forward with this Writ Petition claiming that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains 65 years and he prayed for the relief of quashing the letter dated 24-4-1993 issued by the Executive Officer of the temple.

The Advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5752 dated 7-8-1974 pronounced by a Division Bench of this Court in M. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Executive Officer, Sri Rameswaraswamy Temple, Achanta and Anr., and he contends that no rules were framed under Act No. 30 of 1987 regarding conditions of service and he tries to rely upon the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 1171, Endowments-I Department, dated 16th December, 1987 and claims that the age of superannuation for the clerk is 65 years and not 58 years, and hence the petitioner cannot be retired on his attaining the age of 58 years.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is a true that under the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (in short Act No. 30 of 1987), no rules were issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 85, though with regard to office holders, covered by Section 35 Sub-section (3), rules have been issued under G.O.Ms.No. 1171 dated 16th December, 1987. One glance at the corresponding provisions in the old Act (i.e., Act No. 17 of 1966) and new Act (Act No. 30 of 1987) and the Rules clearly shows that Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the new Act corresponds to Sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the old Act. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued rules u/s 31 (5) of the Act of 1966 in G.O.Ms.No. 1478, dt.17-11-1986. Rule (8) fixes the minimum and maximum age limits. Rule (9) fixes the age of super annuation. That rule reads as follows:-

"Every person not being the holder of a hereditary office or ultharia servant shall retire on attaining the age of fifty eight years except in the case of attenders whose age of superannuation shall be sixty years. An ultharai servant shall retire on attaining the age of sixty five years, but if he is found physically unfit, he may be retired before attaining that age."

It is a common principle under the General Clauses Act that the rules framed under the earlier Act will continue to be in force even after the promulgation of the new Act, unless they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of the new Act. The correct legal position is, as far as the present writ petitioner is concerned, who is not a hereditary office holder and who was earlier governed by Section 31 (5) of Act No. 17 of 1966 and who is now governed by Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the new Act, he is certainly bound to lay down office on completing the age of 58 years. He is bound by rules issued under G.O.No. 1478, Revenue (Endowments VI) Department, dated 17-11-1986. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived and he is bound to retire on the Afternoon of 30-6-1993 i.e., to-day.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.