Report of The Committeeon Service Issues of Temple Employees i Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 2 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE ...................................................................... 2 FEASIBILITY OF PRC SCALE TO TEMPLE EMPLOYEES.................................................... 3 2.1 STATUS OF TEMPLE EMPLOYEES VIS-À-VIS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES .................................. 3 2.2 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING 2010 PRC.............................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Scope of Section 65-A Fund............................................................................................ 13 3 FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING PENSION SCHEME FOR MAJOR TEMPLES .......... 32 4 ISSUE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENTS.................................................................... 33 5 ENHANCEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION FUND, COMMON GOOD FUND AND OTHER STATUTORY CONTRIBUTIONS................................... 33 5.1 ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION FUND .................................................................................. 33 5.1.1 Legal History of Endowments Administration Fund ....................................................... 33 5.1.2 History of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Administration Fund............................................. 34 5.1.3 History of amendments to Sec 65........................................................................................... 35 5.1.4 Implementation of amended Sec 65 through Act 33 of 2007 .................................................. 37 5.1.5 Working of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Administration Fund........................................... 41 5.1.6 Analysis of Expenditure of Endowments Administration Fund ............................................. 43 5.1.7 TTD’s Contribution to Endowments Administration Fund .................................................... 43 5.2 SEC 65-A, ARCHAKAS, OTHER OFFICE HOLDERS AND SERVANT’S SALARY AND OTHER EMOLUMENT FUND:........................................................................................................................... 46 5.3 COMMON GOOD FUND AND OTHER STATUTORY FUNDS ......................................................... 46 5.3.1 TTD Contribution to CGF and Archaka Welfare Fund. ........................................................ 47 6 REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE CADRE OF NMR, CONSOLIDATED, CONTRACT BASIS, DAILY WAGES AND OUTSOURCING ETC, IN ALL THE A.P CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT. 48 7 SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 49 ii 1 INTRODUCTION The tenets of Hinduism strongly believed in universal oneness “Vasudaika Kutumbam” treating human being as one of the creatures in the universal family of living beings including animals and plants. One of the basic tenets of this religion is that a human being is supposed to live for the happiness of fellow living beings. Temple worship which is central to the culture of this religion today is unfortunately going through a phase of lopsided priorities. It is afflicted with some shortcomings some of which are:a) Increasing revenues for a selected few temples and falling revenues/ footfalls in other temples. b) Increasing number of sick temples with the temples with annual income below Rs.50,000/- now numbering more than 30,000 especially in rural areas. c) Increasing forcible occupation of temple lands and exploitation of temple properties by local mafia, consequential falling revenues to the temples d) Increasing materialistic outlook, falling values in society resulting in social unrest coupled with increasing crime and lawlessness. e) Increasing disconnect between temple employees and devotees Every segment of the larger Society comprising of Government, devotees and temple staff have contributed to this situation. All of them have to take responsibility and restructure the whole edifice to bring it closer to the tenets of a Hindu society. There is need to catalyze a reform process in this area to bring about a strong bondage in the Society aiming at a “Vasudevakuntumbam”. Government of Andhra Pradesh realized this fact and took several steps in the right direction such as enactment of amendment to Endowments Act in the form of Act 33/2007, constitution of Dharmik Parishad etc. Presently, it is looking at the issue of keeping the temple staff in comfort and as a step in the right direction constituted a Committee through G.O.Ms.No.1303 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 20-10-2010 with four representatives of the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad viz.,:1) Sri Justice A.Venkatrami Reddy, Chairman 2) Sri M.V.S.Prasad, I.A.S., (Retd) 3) Sri Prof M.V.Soundararajan, Hereditary Trustee, Chilkur 4) Sri A.Chengappa, I.A.S. (Retd.) Subsequently due to unavoidable circumstances the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1395 dated 24-11-2010 modifying the membership of the Committee as follows: 1) Justice P.Jagannadham Naidu, District Judge (Retd.,) 2) Sri M.V.S.Prasad, I.A.S. (Retd.) 3) Sri Prof M.V.Soundararajan 1 through the letter No.A2/32965/2010 dated 8-12-2010 Sri K.Narasimha Murthy a noted financial expert was added as a coopted member The Committee was constituted in the light of several representations from various Temple Employees Associations requesting the Government for implementation of the Pay Revision Commission scale to the employees of various cadres of temple employees with Pension Schemes, Compassionate appointments, regularization etc. The Government while giving two months time for the Committee to give its final report also set the following terms of reference for the Committee through G.O.Ms.No.1303 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 20-10-2010. (a) to examine the feasibility of extension of PRC scale to employees working in temples (Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner cadre) keeping in view the financial status of the temples. (b) to examine the feasibility of implementing a pension scheme for major temples (Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner Cadre) temples (c) to examine issue of compassionate appointments in temples (d) to examine the feasibility for enhancement of present Common Good Fund and Employees Administration Fund and other statutory contributions and (e) to examine the issue relating to regularization of services of the employees working in the cadre of NMR, consolidated, contract basis, daily wages and outsourcing etc., in all the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Department. 1.1 Methodology Adopted by the Committee The temples should become vibrant with Dharmic activities conducting festivals, Brahmotsavams, Spiritual discourses and Religious cultural programs in addition to regular rituals strictly as per “Agama Sastras”. They should ensure good up keep of temples, provide adequate amenities to the devotees and treat the devotees with utmost respect. The temple activities coupled with the Hindu Dharma have to be spread in the catchment areas of temples for increase in footfalls and consequential increase in revenues to the temples. It should be remembered that the serving the devotees is nothing but serving “God”. Temple employees should recognize that devotees are dear to the Lord and the “Archakas” are the prime enablers for keeping the devotee-lord link to make them happy which will result in their spiritual enlightenment. Lord, in His own words has said several times that devotees are dearer to Him more than himself. Hence, satisfying the devotee will enable Lord’s satisfaction and result in sustaining and increasing revenues to the temples. The temple employees should also recognize that protecting temple properties and ensuring reasonable return on temple assets is essential for sustaining and increasing revenue. They should also recognize that their job security and well being is linked to the financial viability of the temple which again depends on the spread of Hindu belief and culture in the catchment area of temples. It is pertinent to note that unless the temple employees strictly follow the Hindu Dharmic life they cannot send right signals for popularizing Hindu culture in the temple catchment area which is essential for long term 2 sustenance of Temple revenues and their viability which is again linked to the well being of temple employees. The Committee keeps the above spirit while evolving solutions on issues referred to in the Terms of Reference (TOR) mentioned above. The Committee has adopted the following methodology to gather all the data required before formulating its opinion on the Terms of Reference. 1. A Public Notice was given as advertisement in various leading News Papers which appeared on 27-10-2010 bringing to the notice of all the Stake holders and the general public the details of the Terms of Reference of the Committee and the process that would be followed. The same is reproduced below • The Committee identified the key issues that must be addressed while considering the matters mentioned in items (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) • The Committee also consulted all the stake holders, Temple Employees unions and other Organizations on the range of solutions that would answer the present situation and to promote the welfare of temples including all sections of the employees and to identify the optimal solutions for this purpose and to recommend a plan of action. • On receipt of the views and suggestions and after examination of the issues, the Committee held wide ranging consultation with people and associations who have given written representations before submitting its report to the Government. 2. The Committee also collected the required data from the Endowment Department Officials to formulate its view on the Terms of Reference. In response to the public notice, the Committee received 66 representations from Organizations and individuals. In addition, 3 MLAs, 2 MLCs have sent their representations to the Committee. It also held discussions with 24 Organizations and individuals. It also had 20 number of sittings before formulating its recommendations to the Government in the form of the present report. It has held discussions with the officials of Endowments Department and the Commissioner, Endowments. 2 Feasibility of PRC Scale to Temple Employees The first term of reference of the Committee is (a) To examine the feasibility of PRC scale to Employees working in temples (Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner cadre) keeping in view the financial status of the temples. 2.1 Status of Temple Employees vis-à-vis Government Employees Before going into the issue we have to examine primarily the applicability of equation of the temple employees with the Government employees. This is primarily needed because of the 3 differences in the income generated by the Government who are pay masters of Government employees as against the incomes generated by the temples who are the pay masters of the temple employees. We have also to recommend the fact that the temple employees do not have a consolidated fund from which they can be paid for. Each temple is a unit by itself and the scope for pooling of funds for payment for all the employees is a separate question. The parity of temple employees with Government employees was gone into by the High Court in W.P.No.1789/04, WP.No.24815/05 and W.P.150/06. Extracts of this Judgment and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue are at Annexure-I. Thus the employees of the Endowments Institutions are not Government Employees and they are not automatically entitled as a right to the same scales of pay given to Government Employees. Further as per Sec 57 (2) (a) (i) of the Endowments Act 30/87 Provided that the salaries of the religious and secular establishment shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65 It is clear that the total expenditure towards the salaries cannot exceed 30% of the annual income as per Section 65. The Pay and allowances of the Office Holders and Servants of Endowments Institutions are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 G.O.Ms.No. 888, Revenue (Endowments I) dated 8-12-2000. With regards to Pay and Allowances, the following are the Rules :Rule 5. Schedule of Establishment, pay and allowances : (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules and also the rules issued under Section 35(3) of the Act, and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner, the trustee of every Institution shall prepare a Schedule of establishment specifying the designation and the number of posts in each category of grade, their scales of pay, allowances, qualification, method of recruitment and submit the same to the Competent Authority for approval. The competent authority may approve the schedule with such alterations, additions or omissions as may be deemed necessary (2) The pay and emoluments of each office holder and servant shall be in accordance with the schedule of the establishment approved by the competent authority. (3) No alteration shall be made in the schedule of establishment except with the prior approval of the competent authority. Rule 36. Special Provisions for certain Temples: The following provisions in addition to the above rules except Rules 5 and 16 shall apply to the Office Holders and servants of the following eight institutions (1) Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam Vishakapatnam District (2) Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District (3) Sri Seetharama Chandra Swamy Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, Khamam District (4) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District (5) Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vijayawada, Krishna District 4 (6) Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District (7) Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta Nalgonda District (8) Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District. Rule 43 Pay and Allowances :- (1) The Pay, Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowances and Other Allowances of the employees shall be on par with the scales applicable to the State Government Employees of similar posts and status. Whenever there is revision to the State Government in the scales of pay, D.A, or HRA, in the case of State Government employees, the employees of these eight institutions will be eligible for such revision Pay, D.A. or H.R.A Provided that the salaries of the religious and secular establishment shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65. (2) The formal approval of the Commissioner shall however be obtained before fixing the Pay, D.A, or H.R.A or other allowances, in the revised scales. Thus, the legal position seems to be that for all temples there is no automatic application of Government Scales for both secular and religious employees. They are all bound by the 30% ceiling which applies equally to the eight major temples. Further for the Archakas of all temples G.O.Ms. No. 858, Revenue ( Endowments-I), Dt 8-101997 , Rationalization of Pay Scales of Archakas of the Temples other than Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams was given based on the recommendations of the Pay Scales Committee and the Orders of the Supreme Court. Through G.O.Ms.No 261, Revenue ( Endowments-I), Dt 20-05-2002 The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and Other Office Holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 2001 were issued in exercise of the Powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 35. Through these Rules, the Posts, mode of recruitment and revised Scales for the following religious category of employees were specified 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Archaka Vedaparayanadar Saptha Sati and Sreevidya Parayanadar Adhyapaka Thevaram recitor Paricharaka Cook Sannayi (Nadaswaram) Dolu Sruthi etc Rule 11. Emoluments :- The emoluments payable to different posts other than those mentioned in Schedule-I shall be as specified in Schedule-II of these rules subject to revision by the Commissioner from time to time. The emoluments are payable from out of the incomes of the respective temples. 5 Rule 12. Allowances :- The rates of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance to the posts specified in Schedules I and II shall be on par with the Rules rates payable to the secular employees from time to time. The moment the scales of pay for the Religious Employees are revised under Rule 11 which has happened also subsequent to PRC 2005 it applies to all temples and each temple subject to the constraint on its income should as a first priority implement the revised scales for the Religious Employees. This is as per the commitment given based on the recommendations of the Pay-Scales Committee and the same has been recorded in the Judgment of the Supreme Court AIR 1997 SC 3702. While the above is the legal position with regards to the Temple Employees, in practice they have historically been extended the same Pay Scales as are drawn by the Government Employees subject to the above statutory constraints. They have been extended similar scales as the Government Employees up to PRC 2005 Scales wherever the income of the temple permits, while in many small temples where the income of the temple does not permit, the PRC 2005 scales have not been extended In light of the above legal and historical position we need to examine whether the said Temple Employees both Religious and Secular can be extended the benefits of PRC 2010 Pay Scales as demanded by them. The Government also amended both Sec 29 and Sec 65 of the Act through Act 34 of 1997 with a view to gain greater control over the Institutions through appointment of Executive Officers bypassing the statutory 30% limit. Amendment of Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 : In the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), in Section 29, in sub-section (6), for the words “ and later recovered from the Institution or endowment concerned in accordance with procedure laid down in this Act, for the recovery of contribution from the institution or endowment” the words “ and later recovered from the Endowments Administration Fund established under Section 29 of this Act”, shall be substituted. Amendment of Section 65 : In Section 65 of the Principal Act, in sub-section (1) for the words “ not exceeding seven percent” the words “ of the actual expenditure incurred towards such services subject to a maximum of fifteen percent “, shall be substituted. Amendment of Section 69: In section 69 of the Principal Act, in sub-section (2), in Clause (a), in sub-clause (iv), the expression “under subsection (6) of Section 29 and “ shall be omitted. The effect of the above amendment was that the Executive Officer whose salary expenses had to be recovered from the Institution concerned and hence subject to the 30% statutory limit was changed to be recovered from the Endowments Administration Fund instead and because of which the contribution from the Institutions was hiked to 15 percent and his salary was now delinked from the statutory 30% limit specified in Sec 57 of the Act. The result of this action of the Government was that it created a difference between the Executive Officer and other Office holders in the same institutions and therefore when the Pay Scales of the Executive Officer was revised along with the staff in the head office of the Endowments Department, automatically the other secular employees in the institution who are performing tasks in the same institution have 6 started to demand parity. This is the root cause of the problem and this is also a matter which is pending before the Supreme Court through the W.P No 290/1998 2.2 Feasibility of Implementing 2010 PRC 2.2.1 Data Analysis Table 1 RJC Cadre Temples 2010 PRC Data Name of the Institution Zone % Increase of PRC2010 over existing emoluments 1 Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam Simhachalam I 10.76% 49.13% 2 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam Annavaram I 14.34% 33.59% 3 Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Dwaraka Tirumala I 19.88% 29.04% 4 Sri Durga Malleshwara Swamy Temple Vijaywada I 18.07% 41.04% 5 Sri Tirupathamma Ammawari Temple Krishna Dt I 19.05% 29.18% 6 Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Srisailam Kurnool District II 13.45% 26.21% 7 8 Sri Vara Siddhi Vinayaka Swamy Temple Kanipakkam Sri Kalahastishawara Temple Chittor II II 11.35% 16.99% 14.91% 18.06% 9 Sri Rajarajeshwari Swamy Temple Vemulawada Karimnagar III 14.80% 42.03% 10 Lakshmi Naraswamy Temple Yadagirigutta Nalgonda III 13.87% 43.47% 11 Sri Seeta Ramachandra Swamy Temple Bhadrachalam Khammam III 11.54% 47.04% S.No 7 If 2010 PRC Implemented % of Establishment The above table summarizes the position with regards to the percentage of cost on establishment if the 2010 PRC is implemented in the RJC cadre temples. The above data has been provided by the Endowments Department and the Committee has noted that the percentage increase of the emoluments over existing emoluments is varying and also is lower than the general expectation of a PRC hike. The data needs to be verified and confirmed. Even assuming that the above data is accurate we find that only 5/11 RJC cadre temples (marked in bold above) qualify for implementation of the PRC 2010 scales as they are below 30% statutory limit of Sec 57. Table 2 DC Cadre Temples 2010 PRC Data S.No Zone % Increase of PRC2010 over existing emoluments If 2010 PRC Implemented % of Establishment I 8.09% 27.81% 1 Name of the Institution Sri Kanaka Maha Lakshmi Ammawari Temple Vishakapatnam 2 Sri Maha Nandishwara Swamy Temple Kurnool II 14.90% 47.96% 3 Sri Nettikanti Anjenya Swamy Temple Kasapuram Ananthapur II 4.90% 28.77% 4 Hathiramji Mutt Tirupathi Chittor Dt II 18.41% 39.32% 5 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple Kondagattu Karimnagar District III 14.57% 32% 6 Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple Komaravalli Cherial Warangal III 11.26% 30.03% 7 Sri Gnana Saraswathi Temple Basara Adilabad District III 15.42% 34.68% 8 Sri Ganesh Temple Station Road Secunderabad III 13.28% 50.65% The above table summarizes the position with regards to the percentage of cost on establishment if the 2010 PRC is implemented in the DC Cadre temples. The above data has been provided by the Endowments Department and the Committee has noted that the percentage increase of the emoluments over existing emoluments is varying and also is lower than the general expectation of a PRC hike. The data needs to be verified and confirmed. Even assuming that the above data is accurate we find only 2/8 of the DC cadre temples (marked in bold above) qualify for implementation of PRC 2010 scales. 8 Table 3 AC Cadre Temple PRC 2010 Data Name of the Institution Zone % Increase of PRC2010 over existing emoluments 1 Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple Arasavalli Srikakulam District I 3.37% 29.19% 2 Sri Manas Trust Vizianagaram I 10.89% 55.99% 3 Sri Pydithalli Ammavari Temple Vizianagaram I 14.20% 43.39% 4 Sri Rameswara Swamy Temple Ramatheerdham I 41.41% 39% 5 Sri Sampath Vinayagar Swamy Temple Vishakapatnam I 36.48% 9.99% 6 Sri Nookambika Ammavari Temple Anakapalli I 14.78% 27.43% 7 8 Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Temple Lova Sri M.S.N Charities Kakinada I I 1117.12% 9.07% 73% 49% 9 Sri Mariadamma Ammavari Temple Peddapuram I 45.00% 46.59% 10 Sri Hithakarini Samajam Rajamundry I 29.57% 33.09% 11 Sri P.M.K. Choultry Rajamundry I 66.99% 59.72% 12 Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple Antervedi I 26.91% 52.5% 13 Sri Balabalji Swamy Temple Appanapalli I 86.67% 65.54% 14 Sri Mandeswara Swamy Temple Mandapalli I 17.59% 26.95% S.No 9 If 2010 PRC Implemented % of Establishment 15 Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple Bhimavaram I -14.45% 15.16% 16 Sri Subramanyeswara Swamy Temple Mopidevi I 11.95% 28% 17 Sri Venugopla Swamy Temple Tenali I 13.95% 43.65% 18 Sri Subramanyaeswara Swamy Temple Singarayapalam I 44.19% 33.09% 19 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Tirumalagiri I 22.02% 26% 20 Sri Jaganadha Swamy &.. Lalapet Guntur II 59.81% 95.49% 21 Sri Bhavanarayana Swamy Ponnur Guntur II 16.02% 89.3% 22 Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple Pedakakini Guntur II 16.03% 36.13% 23 Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Tenali Guntur II 15.57% 46.07% 24 Sri Prasannanjeneya Swamy Temple Singarakonda Praskasam II 30.72% 31.86% 25 Sri Malyadri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple Praskasam II 15.17% 18.45% 26 Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple Penchalakona Nellore II 19.74% 22.22% 27 Sri Rajarajeshwari Ammavari Devasthanam Nellore II 24.37% 25.57% 28 Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple Zonnawada Nellore II 13.28% 26.92% 29 Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple Urukonda Kurnool II 19.56% 16.75% 30 Sri Boyakonda Gangamma Chowdapalli Chittor II 25.66% 16.02% 31 Sri Bugga Mutt Tirupathi Chittor II 15.62% 42.9% 32 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Kadri Ananthapur II 11.60% 23.04% 10 33 Sri Gavi Mutt Samsthanam Uravakonda Ananthapur II 114.44% 76.53% 34 Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Chikkadpally III 29.07% 37.47% 35 Sri Yellamma Pochamma Temple Begumpet III 16.24% 60.2% 36 Sri Ujjain Mahakali Sec'bad III 18.73% 40% 37 Sri Jaganath Swamy Ramgopal Trust Sec'bad III 28.72% 22.65% 38 Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple Keesaragutta III 30.48% 31.86% 39 Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Nacharamgutta Warangal III 41.71% 84.14% 40 Sri Parvathi Jadala Ramalingeshwara Swamy Nalgonda III 28.08% 34.6% 41 Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple Manyamkonda III 29.84% 22.51% The above table summarizes the position with regards to the percentage of expenditure on establishment if the 2010 PRC is implemented in the AC Cadre temples. The above data has been provided by the Endowments Department and the Committee has noted that the percentage increase of the emoluments over existing emoluments is varying and also is lower than the general expectation of a PRC hike. The data needs to be verified and corrected. Even assuming that the above data is accurate we find that only 16/41 AC cadre temples qualify for implementation of PRC 2010 Scales. Overall to summarize only 5/11 RJC, 2/8 DC and 16/41 AC cadre temples i.e 23/60 temples (38%) qualify for implementation of PRC 2010 Scales with the current data provided by the Endowments Department on the basis of legal position obtaining. A number of representations have been received from the E.Os and other staff saying that there is a substantial hike in the percentage of expenditure on account of expenditure on the SPF Personnel, the pension payments and sanitary staff. It is their contention that if the expenditure on these items is not reckoned for the purpose of calculating the expenditure on establishment, then it is quite possible that there will be a substantial reduction in the percentage of expenditure 11 on the establishment of temples. They have given some examples, wherein it was noticed, that the bills submitted by the SPF are not true reflection of the salaries drawn on the personnel actually deployed in their institutions. While a fresh recruit is deployed in the temple, the salaries of Sr. personnel of the same rank were billed resulting in a substantial hike in the bill. This apart, they have also mentioned that in temples like Simhachalam, the expenditure on SPF has gone up because of peculiar problem of deployment of personnel for protection of lands. Similarly they have also mentioned that earlier they used to debit the salaries of sanitary employees to the sanitary budget. But recently because of insistence from the Head Office they are showing the expenditure on the sanitary staff against Establishment. In some of the temples instead of drawing the pensions from out of the interests earned from the deposits made for the purpose, they are paying pensions from the regular income of the temples. This is also causing higher expenditure percentage on establishment. They have strongly urged that these items should be excluded from the costs on Establishment for the purpose of calculating the percentage of expenditure. We see some force in this argument. While we may not entirely agree with the suggestions made, we feel it would be reasonable to deduct the expenditure on the police force from the expenditure on establishment. Infact, we would strongly urge upon the State Government to bear the expenditure on deployment of such force as it emanates from a situation of law and order. While other religious denominations wherein such forces have been employed do not face a similar levy, the temples have been asked to pay for the staff deployed in respect of the temples. We therefore recommend that the State Government should bear the expenditure on the deployment of police force. Until such time State Government takes a decision, we recommend that this item should not be debited to the Establishment charges. Similarly in respect of pensions also, we feel that the temple should contribute a prescribed amount to the Pension Fund wherever pensions are being paid and it is out of the interest accrued on the deposits that the pension should be paid. We recommend that the costs on pension should also not be debited towards the Establishment charges wherever they are paid from temple funds and not from the interest accruals of Pension Fund. Further, unless the entire staff coming at the category as contingent, NMR and SPFs is completely deleted, it is not possible to increase the no. of institutions which would fall within 30% of expenditure. Since we are living with the fact that there is substantial recruitment outside the cadre strength, there is no alternative whether but to live with the situation as it is existing today. The only question that would arise is whether PRC is to be extended to: (1) Only to the 8 temples where it has been implemented on automatic basis alongwith State Government employees. 2) to take into consideration only the regular staff is computing 30% expenditure on staff; or 3) stick to the statutory limit of 30% expenditure on staff and extend PRC only to such temples as on spending less than 30% towards expenditure on staff. While legally there can no exception to point No.3 mentioned above, taking practical and historical aspects into consideration, we would suggest that we accept the first point also. However, we would like to hasten to add that such step could not be legally correct. With regard to point No. 1 the Act itself prescribes a limit of 30% of the assessable income of the temples towards the establishment expenses. In G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 12-2-1982, the Government have extended all the benefits of PRC to the employees of the 8 temples subject however to the condition that it should not be beyond 30% of the assessable income. However it seems that this fiat of the Government has been implemented more in breach. All these 8 temples have been extended scales of pay notwithstanding they were exceeding 30% ceiling. Naturally this action in respect of these 8 temples has made other temples also demand a similar position. This trend 12 should be arrested if not today, atleast at a later date. There is an immediate need to disassociate the salaries of the temple employees from the salaries of the Government. However, in view of the historical action on the part of these temples in extending pay scales as recommended by PRC from time to time we are constrained to allow this practice for the present. We strongly recommend that this practice should not be allowed to be continued beyond the present PRC scales. In respect of other institutions, we strongly recommend that the ceiling of 30% expenditure on staff would hold good and no exceptions should be given except in respect of the 8 temples that too for historical reasons. The other temples which have RJCs as EO but are not in the list of 8 temples would stand the test of 30% limit prescribed by law. As it is these 3templeswhich are other than 8 temples namely Kanipakam, Sri Kalahasthi and Penuganchiprolu according to the data furnished have expenditure less than 30% and as such there should be no difficulty in extending PRC scales to them. In respect of all the DC and AC cadre temples also, the 30% limit prescribed by the Act will have to be adhered to strictly. The Temple Employees Associations which gave representations and had also met the Committee and asked the Committee to explore the option of providing salaries to the Employees through the fund under Sec 65-A. 2.2.2 Scope of Section 65-A Fund The concept of the und under Sec. 65-A can be traced to the following recommendation of C.P. Ramaswamy Iyer Commission report which formed the basis for the amendment Act 33 of 2007. Summary of Recommendation (12) It is absolutely essential that the archakas and pujaries should be ensured a minimum living wage and their emoluments fixed in suitable grades for various categories in order that they may not resort to beggary or extortion. They should also be allowed the benefit of provident fund and pension at least in case of big temples which can afford the same. The facility of free residence near the temple should be provided as far as practicable. The minimum emoluments given in case of archakas in small temples should be at least at Rs 60 p.m in addition to dearness allowance and other allowances admissible to persons in Government service in the corresponding grades in State service. In cases where temples are out of their own resources unable to afford such payments, the pooling system already adverted to in respect of income of temples of the same sampradaya should be resorted to. Further in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court with regards to Imams: “In a series of decisions rendered by this Court it has been held that right to life enshrined in Article 21 means right to live with human dignity. It is too late in the day, therefore, to claim or urge that since Imams perform religious duties they are not entitled to any emoluments. Whatever may have been the ancient concept but it has undergone change and even in Muslim countries mosques are subsidized and the Imams are paid their remuneration. 13 We are therefore, not willing to accept the submission that in our set up or in absence of any statutory provision in the Wakf Act the imams who look after the religious activities of mosques are not entitled to any remuneration. Much was argued on behalf of Union and Wakf Boards that their financial position was not such that they can meet the obligations of paying the Imams as they are being paid in the State of Panjab. It was also urged that the number of mosques is so large that it would entail heavy expenditure, which the boards of different States would not be able to bear. We do not find any correlation between the two. Financial difficulties of the institution cannot be above fundamental right of a citizen. If the boards have been entrusted with the responsibility of supervising and administering the Wakf then it is their duty to harness resources to pay those persons who perform the most important duty namely of leading community prayer in a mosque the very purpose for which it is created. (AIR 1993 SC 2086) Following the thread of thought quoted above, the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Select Committee as a way to accomplish the above pooling system concept recommended the following Concomitantly, the Committee suggests that a separate fund should be created to meet the salary of archakas and other office holders and servants. There has been a persistent demand from about 20,000 personnel and this provision incorporated as 65(A) will address this concern about decent wages and timely payment of salaries to all eligible employees who have been appointed by the competent authorities as per the approved cadre strength of various institutions. An efficient salary disbursal mechanism through banks and effective accounting, audit systems have to be put in place to operationalize this resolve of the Committee. We do hope these changes will happen by the next financial year On the basis of this recommendation, the Endowment Act was amended by addition of Sec 65-A through amendment Act 33 of 2007 Sec 65-A, Archakas, Other Office holders and servant’s salary and other Emolument Fund :- A fund shall be created and vested with the Commissioner for the purpose of payment of salaries and other emoluments to all such Archakas, office holders and servants of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments published under Section 6 of the Act who have been appointed by Competent Authorities as per the sanctioned cadre strength following the prescribed procedure. Every such institution shall pay contribution annually to such fund at the rate prescribed from their annual income as defined under sub-section (5) of Section 65. The procedure for collection of contribution to and disbursement from the fund shall be such as may be prescribed. Thus the entire purpose of this section is to pool resources of temples and pay salaries to all employees and in the process provide cross subsidy to the low income temple employees especially Archakas so that they can at a bare minimum get minimum wages (6,000 per month). A circular was issued by the Commissioner Endowments Circular No. D.P.C/52200/2009 Dt 23-06-2010 with regards to fixation of minimum consolidated remuneration payable to Archakas as resolved by the Dharmika Parishad in the meeting Dt 14 19.05.2010. Further G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 1-7-2008 was issued which is reproduced herewith. 15 It is very clear that the above G.O had not assessed the implication of PRC 2010 and given the fact that for almost all the temples we are unable to implement PRC 2010 it doesn’t make sense to exempt the temples which are providing pension from the purview of Sec 65-A. Given that almost all temples would be close to 30% limit if we need to extend PRC 2010 it makes sense to make the contribution to the fund under Sec 65-A uniform 25% for all categories of temples instead of the current non-uniform contributions. 5% is left with temples for salaries towards NMR / Daily wages/ Outsourcing etc. Though the Term of Reference of the Committee was to explore the possibility of implementing PRC 2010 for RJC/DC/AC Cadre temples it is very clear that once Pay Scales for the Religious Employees of RJC/DC/AC cadre temples are revised under Rule 11 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and Other Office Holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 2001.the same will apply to all Religious Employees working in same cadre in other temples especially when it is decided to pay salaries through the fund under Sec 65-A. Therefore we need to analyze the situation in other temples. While each temple is a unit with regards to fixing of pay and allowances for secular employees as per Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 and eight temples are considered a unit as per Rule 36 and Rule 43 of the same Rules; the pay and allowances of Religious Employees of all temples except TTD are governed by Rule 11 of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and Other Office Holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 2001 subject of course to the statutory limit of 30% under Sec 57 which applies equally to both Religious and Secular Employees of all temples. An analysis of the similar data that we analyzed in the previous section for the RJC/DC/AC Cadre temples gives a very sad picture of the employee belonging to other temples with incomes ranging from 50,000/- onwards. There are people who have been extended regular pay scales but it is impossible to even implement PRC 2005 Scales leave alone PRC 2010 Scales. The question is why did we land up in this messy situation where we are forced to keep Temple Employees more so the Archakas in an impoverished condition? 16 2.2.3 Why this Situation has arisen? Prior to the enactment of the 1987 Act the Government was having control of very few temples. The temples were administered by the Hereditary Trustees who had complete control over decision on what salary to be paid to the employees of the temple and the Endowments Department was playing a regulatory role administering only the high income temples. The trustees were advancing money as well. The 1987 Act abolished both Hereditary Archakatvam and Hereditary Trusteeship and when the matter went to the Supreme Court. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh [1996] 6 SCC 548 written submissions were filed by Telangana Archaka Samakhya in which it was pointed out that the operation of the impugned Act would result in deprival of the livelihood of the Archakas of 24,440 temples and the abolition of their hereditary rights and introduction of graded scales of pay were so burdensome that they would inevitably result in manifest violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically took note of these facts mentioned in the written submissions and had inter-alia observed as under. “This information has been furnished in the written arguments submitted by Shri Markandeya but we did not have the occasion to have them verified during the course of hearing…” (AIR 1996 SC 1765 Para 132) The Court also directed the State Govt. to constitute two committees, one to go into the question of rationalization of Pay Scales of all Archakas and Modality of payment of salary to them and the Second Committee was to enquire into and recommend the welfare measures for the Archakas and other employees. The Pay-Scales Committee found the situation to be far worse than what was filed in the written affidavit and referred to in the Judgment. It recommended exemption of low income temples from the purview of the Act. It also recommended exemption from Sec 144 for 6(C) category temples. Further it linked the abolition of emoluments under Sec 144 with simultaneous implementation of Pay-Scales linked to Government Scales. The Government did not agree with the recommendation of linking the Pay-Scales to that of the Government Scales while agreeing to the other recommendations of the Committee with regard to exempting low income temples from the purview of the Act and also to amend Sec 144 suitably to exempt 6(C) category temples. The report of the Pay Scales Committee along with the recommendations of the Govt were placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Government made the following submission in its affidavit to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. “Temples with such abnormally low incomes may be left to fend for themselves”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the data given by the Pay-Scales committee, and also with the formulations of the Government on those recommendations, backing off from its earlier commitment to ensure rituals in all temples and paying salaries to all Archakas. The Supreme Court had no alternative but to review its earlier 1996 Judgment as the basic premise of the Judgment: state taking responsibility for rituals in all temples and paying salaries to Archakas was no longer valid. Therefore, the Supreme Court reviewed its own Judgment of 1996 In A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu etc., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3702 and gave the following recommendations 17 1. Temples with income less than Rs 5 lacs should be allowed to be managed as before and the Govt should not take over the administration so that the current system of payments and emoluments will continue as before. To give effect to this the court asked the Govt to exempt these temples from the purview of the Act using powers under Sec 154. Thus it is clear that the court accepted that the hereditary system would continue as before in these temples. These temples should be left to fend for themselves. 2. In Temples with income less than Rs 5 lacs which were already under the active management of the Govt the Supreme Court gave recommendations on exempting these from provisions of Sec 144 wherever the Pay Scales could not be fixed and also asked the Govt to consider suitable amendments to Sec 144 and also to reduce staff in such temples. The court also indicated that wherever possible even the temples which are under the active management of the Govt if it is possible to exempt to do so under Sec 154. So that they can also be left to fend for themselves. The observations of the Supreme Court in the 1997 Judgment AIR 1997 SC 3702 and the related issues are at Annexure-2. Though the Supreme Court had recommended exemption of 90% of temples from the purview of the Act and had also ordered that hereditary trustees should not be disturbed unless foul in management is proved , the department instead went ahead and implemented the provisions of the Act in thousands of such temples by appointing an EO or a Manager and other secular staff. It also mechanically disturbed the Hereditary Trustee even if the Temples were properly administered by appointing trustboards and EO/PIMs. It also extended G.O.Ms No 858 Revenue (Endowments I Dt 8-10-1997) “Rationalization of Pay Scales of Archakas of the Temples other than Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams” While the pay scales for all secular employees was religiously implemented and periodically revised the Pay scales and revisions was not implemented in the case of many Archakas and other Religious staff as there was no money to pay their salaries after paying the salaries of the secular employees and be within the 30% statutory limit. The fact that many Archaka families became impoverished and temples virtually closed down is clear from the following excerpt from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 33 of 2007 “Over the last two decades, there has been a substantial increase in pilgrim flow in certain temples while many of the old village temples have been languishing without any traditional rituals being performed. There have been numerous representations from the Archakas that a strict adherence to the provisions of the Act have created difficult conditions for Archakas to continue in the profession. On the one hand, the Act had abolished the Hereditary rights and simultaneously abolished share in Hundies and other offerings given by devotees to the temple. The assumption that Archakas would be able to get salaries and lead a decent life has not been borne out by experience over the last two decades. As a result, neither the Government is in a position to pay salaries nor has it been able to allow the Archakas to manage temples and have shares in Hundi, plate or any other Rusum in Archana or Seva ticket or any offering made by devotees. They were also not able to continue enjoyment of the lands allotted or allowed to be in their possession. As a result, many traditional Archaka families have become impoverished and the temples have virtually shut down. In addition, there have been complaints that traditional temple rituals are not being performed strictly as per the particular sastra governing the temple and the sanctity of the religious rituals as per the custom and usage is not being preserved. The Supreme Court had appreciated the need to preserve the customs and usage with a view to protect the sanctity of religious 18 rituals in I.A.No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 638 of 1987 and I.A. No. 3 in transfer case No. 170 of 1987. The committee further recommends that as and when the present incumbent in the religious staff retires or demits office or otherwise, the person in their family should be considered on priority basis for filling of that post or allowing him to do the service to preserve the custom and usage taking into consideration suitably in rendering services apart from the qualification required. The Government has accepted the recommendations subject to all other things being equal in competitive requirement. However the main concern should be to preserve the customs and usage with a view to protect the sanctity of the religious rituals. The Government itself has been taking care to preserve the sanctity of the religious rituals. Nothing more needs to be said in this behalf. It is accordingly approved. In order to remedy the situation the Government intends to amend the Act in order to revive the village temple system, preserve the sanctity of traditional rituals, customs and usage and provide livelihood to the Archaka families, Amendments to Sections 34 and 144 are intended to achieve these objectives. All political parties had unanimously accepted such amendments in a meeting held on 4-10-2004 “ The Pay Scales of Religious Employees defined in G.O.Ms.No 858 were subsequently revised through G.O.Ms.No. 261 Dt 20-5-2002 and Proceedings Dt 26.4.2006 and further revised through proceedings dated 16.10.2006 and 24.11.2006 bringing the scales in line with PRC 2005 scales. Now these need to be revised as per PRC 2010. The indiscriminate taking over of temples and increase in the secular staff in violation of the Orders of the Supreme Court has meant that it is now impossible to implement PRC 2010 scales for the Religious Employees due to the 30% establishment limit in majority of the temples. Also the lands given to Archakas in lieu of service were disturbed in many temples with the promise of payscales. The other impact was that the Endowments Department itself increased the expenditure as it now had to deal with lot more temples under its control which meant more Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, and Executive Officers etc. The observations by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court which are at Annexure-3 further illustrate the above point 2.2.3.1 Summary of Data Submitted by the Archaka Organizations It is said that Ärchaka sa hari ssakshaat” meaning Archaka is personification of the deity himself. Respecting the religious sentiments, Hon’ble Supreme Court while laying down the guidelines on remuneration gave the order of priority as Religious staff and secular staff which means from the assessable income first Archaka should be paid and then the religious staff and the balance will have to be paid to the secular staff including executive officer. On perusal of data, it is found that the order of priority has been reversed during implementation to our surprise. The priorities seem to be first to Executive Officer, to secular staff and later if there is some balance existing the Archakars will be paid. Owing to the above practice which has no legal sanction, Several Archakas have not been receiving salaries or receiving meagre salaries owing the application of 30% ceiling. Even in large temples the 30% ceiling is exceeded and same norms are followed. E.g., Simhachalam there are 73 religious staff and 205 secular staff. The costs of religious staff for 6(a) and 6(b) institutions is typically 5- 7.3% of establishment while that of secular staff is 21% of the establishment. In the case of Yadagirigutta, there are consistency issues but based on representation of Yadagirgutta staff and the EO Yadagirigutta, it is clear that the total salaries 19 expenditure including all staff is close to 40% (10% higher than the ceiling of 30%). While for 6(c) temples Archakas draw between 3-18% of the total establishment cost. Table 4 : Establishment charges for Varahalakshmi Narasimhaswamy devasthanam, Simhachalam Year Assessable (Rs) income Establishment charges (Rs) %ge 2006-07 63589936 32544776 51.17 2007-08 54703521 41928070 76.64 2008-09 120847728 45105312 37.32 From the above Table it is clear that the 30% ceiling of establishment charges were never respected by the temple management. Vishakhapatnam and Kurnool district Archaka sanghas have represented that Archakas have been paid abominably low wages which have impoverished them and even if there is opportunity to implement PRCs it is not considered. In the case of temples having annual income below Rs 2 lakhs, where the directions of the Supreme court were to exempt them under section 144 of the act, this has not been implemented. As a result many temples have impoverished Archakas and staff. E.g. The salaries for Archakas for 6(c) temples range around Rs 10-20000 every year and sweepers, watchmen, attenders are also in similar range (see table below). Similar situation exists in all other districts. Table 5 Example Temples in Vishakhapatnam and Kurnool Income Temples (Rs) Total Archakas Annual Salary to Total sweepers archakas (Rs) Annual Salary to sweepers (Rs) <50000 41 41 411600 16 88200 500001,00,000 14 20 331800 11 99600 1,00,000- 12 2,00,000 15 553800 18 168000 The Sanghams have also brought to the notice of the committee several temples where PRCs have been implemented to secular staff while not for religious staff. Example of this is given in Table below: Table 6 : Some examples of temples where PRCs are not implemented for Archakas Temple Assessable Annual income Salary for (Rs) Archaka (Rs) Sri Venkateswara 507260 swamy temple, srikakulam 18000 Annual Annual Salary Comments Salary for for Junior Manager attendant (Rs) (Rs) PRC implemented 20 Even though income of the temple is high PRC not implemented Sri Venkateswara 616111 swamy temple, Narasannapet 60000 Sri paidithalli temple 24000 206928 110916 No PRC for Archaka. Others implemented 45996/- 13248/- No PRC Polipalli 894058 ammavari Salary not actually being paid Lakshmana Balaji temple, Vekkili 250196 9600/- Sri Mallikarjunaswamy temple, Ravivalasa 10,40,598 5000 No PRC Sr Kottamma Ammavaari temple 10,80,850 Nominal No PRC Sri Mukhalingeswara 8,81,450 swamy temple Nominal No PRC Sri Pedda Jagannadha swamy temple, Ichapuram 60000/- & 12000/- 49980/29340/- Sri Ramalingeswara 6(b) swamy temple, Annavaram 60000/- 106428/- PRC 2005 implemented for secular staff Neelamani Durga Ammavaari temple, Pathapatnam 6(b) Not shown 132672/- 51792/- No archaka is registered Sri Yendela Mallikarjunaswamy temple, Ravi valasa 6(b) 60000/- 149076/- 45540/- PRC implemented for secular staff Sri Mukhalingeswara 6(b) swamy temple, srimukhalingam Not shown 179304/- 56988/- No archaka is registered Srivenkateswara 6(b) swamy temple Fazulbegpeta, srikakulam 72000/- Sri Uma Rudrakoteswara swamy temple, Gudiveedhi, Srikakulam 18000/- 6(b) 6(b) 33732/87372/- 42000/33660/45936/34380/- 21 and PRC 2005 implemented for secular staff PRC not implemented for religious staff No PRC for religious staff Sri Kothamma Ammavari temple 6(b) Not shown 157944/- 49716/- No archaka? Sri Venkateshwara 6(c) swamy temple, chinnabazaar, Srikakulam 24000/- 172632/- 27420/- No PRC for Archaka Sri Syama sundara 6(c) swamy temple, tekkali 8400/- 49140/- Sri Mookambika Ammavari temple, Ankapalli Not registered - 6(a) No PRC for archaka 18 staff paid PRC for PRC secular staff implemented Sri Venkateswara & 6(b) Vinayaka swamy temple, BHPV, Gajuwaka 24000/- ( each for 3 archakas) 103212/- PRC not implemented for religious staff Sri Ranganadha 6(c) swamy temple Gudilova, Anandhapuram 18000/- 18000/- No PRC Sri Vigneswaraswamy 6(b) temple, Vishakhapatnam 21600/- 106032/- PRC only for secular staff Sri Mahaganapthi sri 6(c) prasanna venkateswara temple, Visakhapatnam 72000/- 114192/- Sri Venkateshwara 6(b) swamy temple, Vaddadi 6(b) 48000/- 182592/- No PRC for archakas Sri Vigneswaraswamy 6(b) temple, chodavaram 30000/- 63216/- No PRC for archakas Sri Yerimamba Ammavaari temple, Gananapuram 6(b) 72000/- 117648/- No PRC for Archakas Sri Uma Neelakanteswara swamy temple, Railway new colony, Vishakhapatnam 6(b) 48000/- 105780/- Sri Kasivisweswara 6(b) swamy temple, Anakapalli 24000/- 101628 22 61600 No PRC for Archaka Sri Chennakeshava & Anjaneyaswamy temple, Moolasagaram, Kurnool 6(b) 48000/- Sri Lakshmi 6(b) Chennakeshavaswamy temple, Atmakur, Kurnool Sri Rambhotla Devalayam, Kurnool Sri Veeranarayanaswamy temple, Panyam, Kurnool 187464 92772 No PRC for archakas 30000/- 62242/- No PRC for Archakas 6(b) 14400/- 66000/- No PRC for Archakas 6(b) 21960/- 53256/- No PRC for archakas In the above table there are examples where some 6(a)-6(c) temples have no registration of payments to Archakas. E.g. for Mookambika temple in Ankapalli which is a 6(a) temple. We are also indicating examples from Kurnool as sample in table below. Table 7 : Archaka salaries in Kurnool Archaka salary as income Annual Archaka salary %ge of income (Rs) Annual (Rs) Temple Sri Madhvaswamy Goppadu temple, Srivenugopalaswamy Gundepadu temple, 170534 12000 7.0 71310 12000 16.8 Sri ChennaKeshavaswamy temple, Yerraguntla 193873 12000 6.2 Sri Chennakeshavaswamy temple, Peddayammanuru 31144 6000 19.3 Sri G.Nageswaraswamy temple & Sri Lakshmi Janardhanaswamy temple 193127 7200 3.7 Sri Madhvaswamy Dornipadu 285323 7200 2.5 Sri Chennakeshavaswamy temple, Kampavallu 195876 14400 7.4 Sri Chennakeshavaswamy temple, peddakopperla 134371 14400 10.7 temple, 23 Sri Chennakeshavaswamy temple, Akumallu 136232 18000 13.2 Sri Buggavenkateswara temple, noppam 150383 18000 12.0 125340 19200 15.3 Sri Lomma Anajaneyaswamy 83748 temple, Gorinimanipalli 19200 22.9 Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy 199704 temple, kolimigundla 30000 15.0 Sri Varadaraju tummalapeta 30000 15.3 swamy Sri Chennakeshavaswamy temple, Shivavaram swamy temple, 196371 The salaries of Archakas range from 500 to 2500 per month. Consolidated cost of Archaka varies from 2 to 15% of the assessable income in the temples in case of 6(c), while in case of 6(a) and 6(b) it is between 5-7%. The salaries of manager range from 1.2 times to over 8 times the Archaka salaries and the salaries of Junior assistants range from 0.5 to 4 times the salaries of Archakas (see figures below). 250000 archaka Manager Junior assistant/ attendent Annual Salary (Rs) 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Temples Figure 1 : Comparison of Salaries between religious & secular staff across temples in Vishakhapatnam and Kurnool 24 1000 Managers Relative salary (%ge of Archakas) 900 attendants 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 Annual salary of Archakas (Rs) Figure 2 : Typical Relative salaries of Managers and Junior Attendants to the salaries of Archakas 2.2.3.2 What can be done to retrieve the Situation with regards to Archakas and Employees of other Temples? The cumulative effect of the mismanagement of the affairs of the Religious Institutions by the Endowments Department has resulted in the present situation where many temple employees belonging to low income category especially Archakas and sweepers are not being paid decent salary and the vision with which the Government amended the legislation based on the report of the Select Committee is yet to materialize. The first and foremost thing that needs to be done so that the amended Act can be implemented at a fast pace is to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee “A semi autonomous Apex body called Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad is sought to be created to oversee the management of the entire temple system in the state. It would most likely discharge most of the functions being currently performed by the Government. It would have the authority and responsibility to institute appropriate administrative, financial and legal mechanisms to ensure that Endowments are preserved, dilapidated temples are renovated, temples become pilgrim-friendly, the rich traditions and cultural heritage are preserved and all stake holders participate in a 25 spirit of partnership with devotion and dedication to bring temples back into social life as centers of moral education, human welfare, fine arts and architecture. It will not be merely an advisory body as envisaged earlier. It will be the policy making body with substantial autonomy to coordinate and facilitate better management of temples. The Sec 152 A(1) proposed in the amendment Bill is modified accordingly The Government to delegate its powers and functions to Dharmika Parishad ( under Sec 152(3)). This is needed to ensure that the amended Act can be effectively implemented to bring about a sea change in the current environment. The major objections raised by the Archakas and other temple employees as regards the huge amount of funds gained by making payments to the persons in the management who have been drawing salaries on pooling basis from different temples also. This is causing a huge drain on the income of the temples which are small in nature. Historically these persons in management are earlier employees of a temple and were drawing their salaries from that temple. The idea is that while being an employee of the temple they should supervise smaller temples. This arrangement has been made to effectively supervise functioning of smaller temples which were not being supervised earlier at all. The revised arrangement of the Managers supervising a number of temples and drawing salaries not from that temple but from a group of temples is causing considerable resentment. There seems to be some strength in this argument that instead of drawing salary from that temple from where they were earlier appointed they are drawing salary from different temples on being appointed as Managers and this is causing a heavy drain on smaller temples. To avoid this we suggest that the persons in Management should draw the salary from the parent temple from which they were drawing and they can be given supervising of temples. It is contended that the vacancies in which they were working earlier were filled up by appointment of substitutes. It is said that such appointments could be in excess of the posts sanctioned. We were also informed that recently Government have sanctioned 347 posts of Executive Officers. We feel that instead of filling up these posts with fresh recruits they could be filled up by recruitment from among the temple staff dispensing with direct recruitment and quotas from the Endowments Department by obtaining necessary sanction as a one time measure. Managers now working could be adjusted against the vacancies that arise out of appointment of Executive Officers. This way number of Managers can be accommodated in their parent temples or otherwise if they are eligible they can be promoted as Executive Officers. This is a step in the direction of abolition of Institution of Managers. However we have noted that the Executive Officers of the Temples have always been paid from EAF and they have always had the benefit of the PRC scales being extended to them automatically along with other Government employees. All the benefits as are applicable to Government employees are being made applicable to the Executive Officers of the temples. The Executive Officers and other staff of the Endowments Department were always on an equal footing in so far as extensions of PRC scales are concerned. It is also significant to note that the salaries of the Executive Officers are never reckoned against 30% ceiling prescribed by the Act. They are invariably paid from the EAF to effectively their salaries would be covered by a fund to which there is a contribution of 12% by the temples. This 12% is generally calculated over and above the ceiling prescribed towards the establishment charges in section 57 of the Act. May be there is need to have a second look at this situation. Let us now analyze the financial position at a cumulative level. 26 Table 8 Cumulative Data on Regular Employees in 2008 S.No MultiZone No of Institutions No of Employees (Regular) With Scale Consolidated Total 1 I 2,697 4,720 4,569 9,289 33.27 2 II 4,693 2,528 3,458 5,986 18.1 3 III 762 2,555 2,197 4,752 23.29 8,152 9,803 10,224 20,027 74.67 Total Salary and Other Emoluments in Crores Table 9 Secular Employees on Regular Pay Scales PA SUPDT SA JA RA Attender Sweeper Helpers Malies S.I 26 129 1123 515 1667 144 85 18 265 2423 Scanvengers Doctors Nurses E.E D.E.E A.E D.MAN W.I D.S Total Others 102 7 6 7 18 34 19 18 1 6607 10,482 17,089 Table 10 Religious Employees on Regular Pay Scales Archakas Veda Pandits Sthana 1985 10 S.No 1 100 Paricharaka Cooks Asst Cooks Bajanthries Others Total 118 43 611 6374 Charya 173 Category No of Institutions Non – Assessable Income Below Rs 50,000 29,551 2 Assessable Income above Rs 50,000 below Rs 2 Lakhs 2007 3 Assessable Income above Rs 2 Lakhs but below Rs 5 lakhs 1000 Assessable Income above Rs 5 Lakhs but below Rs 25 336 6 27 3764 Assessable Income in Crores 31,558 25.14 1336 65.3 Total Lakhs 7 Assessable Income above Rs 25 Lakhs TOTAL 123 123 208.24 33,017 33,017 298.68 Therefore the total number of Institutions above income of Rs 50,000 is 33,017 – 29,551 = 3466. At the same time the total Institutions which have Pay Scales both regular and consolidated = 8152 Which means that for 8192 – 3466 = 4726 Institutions which have income below 50,000 both regular and consolidated Pay Scales are being given. The only solution for fixing pay anomalies with regards to Religious employees and to provide basic emoluments in low income temples is through the Fund under Sec. 65-A as contemplated by the Select Committee. 2.2.3.2.1. Implementing Scheme under Section 144 A provision which has not been implemented effectively is the scheme concept under Sec 144 which was incorporated through amendment Act 33 of 2007 based on the following recommendation of the Select Committee. The Select Committee deliberated upon the amendment to Section 144 which is intended to improve the financial status of low-income temples. The archakas and other office holders working in this temple would have an option to either take a share of the temple income or take the salaries wherever they find that they are not able to make a living from the lands or the offerings given by the devotees. Accordingly, the amendment as proposed was approved as this is in conformity with the observations of the Supreme Court, is in consonance with the objectives of the Government to augment income levels of small temples and gives an option to archakas and other office holders and servants to opt for a scheme that is more beneficial to them. The power to approve schemes where there are special circumstances necessitating such a formulation is being given to the Dharmika Parishad. Under this situation a scheme has to be prepared in respect of temples where lands are with the Archakas. During our discussions with the Archakas and other religious employees, many of them especially from the Coastal districts, Kurnool and Karimnagar were mentioning that if these schemes are prepared and they are allowed, the benefits under such schemes, they would not be expecting any salaries. Effectively it would mean that there is no outflow of salaries from the temple funds for the Archakas. Even where there are small extents of lands the income derived out of those lands would meet some percentage of the salaries and to that extent would reduce the burden of the temples towards the payment of salaries. It is necessary that all such schemes will have to be prepared quickly so that an accurate assessment of the requirement of outflow of funds towards salaries could be arrived at. 28 The scheme should also include reinstating the cash grants to Archakas under sul-se-sulsan rules in light of amendment to Sec.144. We are strongly recommending that the preparation of the schemes under Section 144 should be expedited and completed within the next six months and an option obtained from such religious staff as regards their preference either for salaries or for the produce from the lands earmarked for the religious staff. 2.2.3.3. Graphical Analysis of the Cumulative Data across all Temples The following is a Graphical analysis of the data to enumerate areas of improvement salary for staff (total)/number of staff 150000 Specific income vs Specific salary (regional) Andhra and rayalaseema telangana coastal 130000 110000 90000 70000 50000 30000 10000 -10000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 Assessable annual income/number of staff Figure 3 Analysis of Staff Salaries across Districts 29 500000 Measure of excess staffing in temples High Income temples 200000 medium income temples low income temples Salary per unit employee 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 200000 400000 600000 Income per unit employee Figure 4 Analysis of Staff Salaries across Temples The above is an analysis of the Cost per Employee vs Income per Employee across all Districts and all Temples in the different regions. It is expected that as the Income per Employee increases the Cost per Employee should also increase (higher pay or more people in higher cadres etc) which is a general trend observed. But it also clear that this is not an uniform trend and there are significant aberrations which need to be looked into as the variation in Cost per Employee for a given Income per Employee across temples is a larger range. The data needs to be analyzed further and the variations have to be brought down as it indicates that the distribution of staffing is not scientific across the Institutions in terms of Cadre strength. These needs to be rationalized further so that the Graph has a more linear relationship between Cost per Employee v Income per Employee. As an example for a temple where income per employee is 4 lakhs the salary per employee ranges between Rs 10,000 to 1,80,000 per annum. 30 Measure of temple efficiency Total assessable income as %ge of Gross income 100 80 60 40 High Income medium income low income 20 0 0 10000000 20000000 30000000 40000000 Total Assessable Income (Rs) Figure 5 Analysis of Assessable income as a percentage of Gross Income across Temples 31 50000000 Assessable income as %ge of gross income Establishment (other than salary) as percentage of Assessable income coastal districts 100 andhra & rayalaseema telengana 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 800 Assessable income (Rs) Millions 1000 Figure 6 Analysis of Assessable Income as a percentage of Gross Income Across Districts The above analysis in both the Graphs ( Temple wise and District wise) shows that there is significant variation in the assessable income as a percentage of Gross Income and where the percentages are lower there is scope for reducing the fixed expenditure. There are many districts/temples where the range is between 80% to 90% and this is the ideal band for all Institutions across all districts. 3 Feasibility of Implementing Pension Scheme for Major Temples As is obvious from the previous section it is becoming extremely difficult to meet the salary of existing employees and giving them decent livelihood. The existing pension schemes in temples should be continued by creating a separate fund in each such temple and for future employees it needs to be based on a EPF approach where there is a contribution towards a separate PF account instead of a promised pension as is the case with Government Employees. The question of continuing Pension Scheme in Government is getting a relook including the Govt. of India based on the latest report of Central PRC. With longevity of employees after retirement rising and the additional benefits being sought by the pensioners mounting up the extension of pensionary benefits to Govt. employees itself is posing a problem. 32 Even the State Government has done away with the Pension Scheme. The Pension Scheme as is now obtaining in certain temples should not be looked into at all. Instead the pension scheme on a contributory basis as is applicable to State Government employees should be adopted. For this purpose a scheme will have to be prepared to arrive at contributions to be made by the employer and the employees and that fund will have to be generated separately and kept in deposit with clear instruction that it should not be used for any other purpose other then pension. In the alternative a scheme is being worked out by the Executive Officer, Dwaraka Tirumala Devasthanam in consultation with LIC and the banks. This could be considered as an alternative in respect of pension scheme to the employees. 4 Issue of Compassionate Appointments There is a scheme of Compassionate Appointment in the Government. For various reasons Government also one time considered doing away with the Scheme. But no such Scheme is available to employees working in the temples. Obviously there are many difficulties in extending this benefit to the employees of the temples and other endowments for the simple reason that temples or endowments are very small units and there is little scope for utilization of the services of the dependants of those who die on a larger canvas. However, it would be appropriate to extend the scheme of Compassionate Appointment which is available in the Government to the employees of the temples and other endowments. We would recommend that a temple or an Endowment would be treated as the unit for this purpose and the applicability would have to be with reference to the qualifications prescribed for the post to which the deceased employees’ children are to be appointed. We however take note of the fact that in respect of religious staff, there is already a provision for appointment of the children of the deceased religious staff. Temples shall not form a unit for the Collectors/Government for allotting candidates from among the dependants of deceased Government employees. 5 Enhancement of Contribution to Endowments Administration Fund, Common Good Fund and other Statutory Contributions 5.1 Endowments Administration Fund 5.1.1 Legal History of Endowments Administration Fund The history of the EAF can be traced to the legal history of Sec 76 of the Madras Endowments Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case. Various Judgments and comments thereon are at Annexure-IV 33 5.1.2 History of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Administration Fund The Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act 1966 incorporates the provisions of the Sec 76 and Sec 81 of the Madras Act as amended by the 1954 Act in response to the defects pointed out in the Shirur Mutt case. Sec 59 : Liability of Institution or endowment or Dharmadayam to pay annual contribution : - (1) In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their employees every charitable or religious institutions or endowment or Dharmadayam whose annual income is not less than rupees one thousand shall be liable to pay to the Government annually from the income derived by it, such contribution not exceeding seven percent of the annual income as may be prescribed (2) The contribution which an institution or endowment is liable to pay under subsection (1) shall be paid annually to Endowments Administration Fund. ….. Sec 64 : Establishment of Endowments Administration Fund (1) There shall be established a fund to be called the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Administration Fund. The Endowments Administration Fund shall vest in the Commissioner. (2) (a) The following amounts shall be credited to the Endowments Administration Fund, namely :(i) the assets which devolved on the Government under Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (hereinafter in this section referred to as 1951 Act) (ii) the balance in the fund constituted under Section 76 of 1951 Act (iii) the sums due to the Government under Section 76 of 1951 Act when realized (iv) the contributions payable under sub-section (1) of Section 59 of this Act when realized. ….. (3) The Commissioner shall out of the said fund repay to the Government (i) the sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State in the first instance towards the salaries, allowances, pensions and other remuneration of persons appointed by the Government for rendering services under any of the provisions of this Act;…. It is very clear that the provisions of the 1966 Act are based on the Madras Act and in accordance with the law laid down by the Courts. The Justice Challa Kondiah Commission describes the entire legal history of the said provisions and the same is again reincorporated in the 1987 Act in the following way Sec 65. Liability of Institution or endowment or Dharmadayam to pay annual contribution and audit fees:- (1) In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their employees, every charitable or religious institution or endowment or Dharmadayam other than Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams whose annual income is not less than rupees five thousand, shall be liable to pay to the 34 Government annually from the income derived by it, such contribution not exceeding seven percent of the annual of the annual income as may be prescribed. …. Sec 69 : Establishment of Endowments Administration Fund (1) There shall be established a fund to be called the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Administration Fund. The Endowments Administration Fund shall vest in the Commissioner. (2) (a) The following amounts shall be credited to the Endowments Administration Fund, namely :(i) the balance in the fund constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (ii) the sum due to the Government under Section 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966. (iii) the contributions and audit fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 65 when realized. ... (3) The Commissioner shall out of the said fund repay to the Government (i) the sums paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State in the first instance towards the salaries, allowances, pensions and other remuneration of persons appointed by the Government for rendering services under any of the provisions of this Act;…. So in a nutshell the AP Endowments Act 1966 and the un amended AP Endowments Act 1987 visualized a similar structure as envisaged in Sec 76 and Sec 81 of the Madras Endowments Act through Sec 65 and Sec 69 of the Act. The components are a) A fund called Endowments Administration Fund will be created and vest in the Commissioner b) All the contributions in return for the services rendered will be paid into the Endowments Administration Fund by the Institutions. The Contributions will be subject to a maximum of 7 percent of the annual income. c) In the first instance the Government will pay salaries to the employees out of the Consolidated Fund of the State and the same will be repaid by the Commissioner from the Endowments Administration Fund. 5.1.3 History of amendments to Sec 65 In the year 1997 the Government brought an amendment to Sec 65 through Act 34 of 1997 whereby it was decided to repay to the Government the salaries of the Executive Officers which was in the first instance paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State from the Endowments Administration Fund as against the recovery from the temple concerned. Simultaneously the maximum limit which was seven percent was raised to 15 percent. This particular amendment and the increase of the contribution from 7% to 15% were challenged by Telangana Archaka Samakhya through the WP 290 of 1998 which is currently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 35 In response to the contention raised in the Writ Petition WP 290 of 1998 and given that there is large surplus accumulated as predicted in the petition making the levy more as a tax than a fee and to save the Section from being struck down by the Ho’ble Supreme Court in the pending Writ Petition based on the ratio of the judgement in State of Maharashtra v The Salvation Army Western India Territory AIR 1975 SC846 ; Section 65 of the Act was further amended in the year 2007 through amendment Act 33 of 2007 and it now reads as follows Sec 65. Liability of Institution or endowment or Dharmadayam to pay annual contribution and audit fees:- (1) In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their employees, every charitable or religious institution or endowment or Dharmadayam other than Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams whose annual income is not less than rupees fifty thousand, shall be liable to pay to the Government annually from the income derived by it, such contribution of the actual expenditure incurred towards such services of the annual income as may be prescribed. The above amendment to the Act was in response to the recommendations of the Andhra Pradesh Select Committee which gave the following recommendation Taking the argument further, the select committee felt that the smaller institutions should not be required to contribute to the Endowments Administration Fund or Common Good Fund. While currently, all institutions having income more than Rs 5000 have to contribute to these funds, the Committee recommends that Institutions with income less than Rs 50,000 need not pay any contribution. Accordingly changes are proposed in Section 65(1). The Committee felt that it would not be realistic to fix what the contribution to EAF and CGF should be in the Act because the needs of the system and the financial flows into the fund are constantly changing and therefore, it would be ideal if the proposed Dharmika Parishad can be empowered to take the decision on the quantum of contribution from each category of institutions. Concomitantly, the Committee suggests that a separate fund should be created to meet the salary of archakas and other office holders and servants. There has been a persistent demand from about 20,000 personnel and this provision incorporated as 65(A) will address this concern about decent wages and timely payment of salaries to all eligible employees who have been appointed by the competent authorities as per the approved cadre strength of various institutions. An efficient salary disbursal mechanism through banks and effective accounting, audit systems have to be put in place to operationalize this resolve of the Committee. We do hope these changes will happen by the next financial year. Thus through the amendment the maximum limit of 15% has been removed and it is now made clear that the contribution has to be equal to the actual expenditure and the levy needs to be prescribed through the Rule making power delegated to the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad taking into account the surplus thus bringing the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act in line with the requirement set by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v The Salvation Army Western India Territory AIR 1975 SC846 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in AIR 1956 Mad 491 Shri H.H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar, Senior Swamiar Of Puthige Mutt And Ors. vs The Commissioner Of Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments And Anr. 36 The following observation Hon’ble Madras High Court which is reproduced once again makes this aspect clear Statutory provisions are meant to be comparatively more static than the Rules framed under the Act. If a real co-relation is to be maintained at all times between the fee actually levied and the service rendered, for which the fee is levied, the advantage of a flexible machinery like a delegated rule making power should be obvious. Now that there is a separate fund administered by the Commissioner it should be easier for the Government to exercise its delegated power well within the legal limits. If there is a surplus of income over expenditure, the Government can and is obviously expected to revise the rates of levy, to keep as near as possible to the real quid pro quo basis for the levy of the fee. The need for such periodical revisions is implicit, when the Act specifies only the maximum and entrusts the duty of fixing the quantum of levy within that maximum to the Government, as the authority empowered by the Legislature to frame the necessary rules. It may be an onerous responsibility. But that is implicit in a greater or lesser degree in every case of lawful delegation of powers. The rule has to be intra vires the rule-making authority. Even if Section 76(1) is valid that would not by itself validate the "prescribed" rate, that is, the rate prescribed from time to time, the validity of which will have to be substantiated if it is challenged. In the very nature of things, there can be nothing static about the rates to be prescribed for the levy authorised by Section 76(1) 5.1.4 Implementation of amended Sec 65 through Act 33 of 2007 The following Table and the Graphical representation of the same give an idea of how the EAF is functioning and the extent of surplus that is accumulated over the years. 37 Table 11 : EAF Data Across Years Year 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total Income 1.6738239 1.946457 2.5542948 2.2790777 2.4589051 3.6178265 2.7915116 3.5260433 4.64057 5.3447315 8.116259 10.267804 14.429559 17.355858 18.304861 17.389265 20.199947 23.63468 27.809854 27.095895 32.412031 33.841016 43.99109 65.135893 390.81725 Expenditure 1.6055308 2.0563223 2.2000605 2.5486707 2.4301368 2.8321825 3.1056762 3.6016484 4.2144771 5.4924013 7.2876094 8.667855 10.48819 12.911014 15.124736 15.312542 16.246118 17.467873 16.317272 16.665265 17.7814 20.305185 25.446753 26.876793 256.98571 38 Surplus 0.0682931 -0.1098653 0.3542343 -0.269593 0.0287683 0.785644 -0.3141646 -0.0756051 0.4260929 -0.1476698 0.8286496 1.5999487 3.9413697 4.4448438 3.1801248 2.0767228 3.9538288 6.1668074 11.4925826 10.43063 14.6306309 13.535831 18.5443373 38.2591 133.8315422 70 Income 60 Expenditure Excess Crores 50 40 30 20 10 0 Years Figure 7 EAF Data Across Years From the above table it is very clear that the actual contribution to the Endowments Administration Fund is almost double the actual expenditure and the overall surplus in the fund is growing. The accumulated surplus is to the tune of Rs 133.83 Crores without assuming any interest and with a normal compounding interest of 6% the same comes to about Rs 165 Crores. The Government after the amendment to Sec 65 through Act 33 of 2007 invoked the Rule making power and through G.O.Ms.No 921 Dt 29-7-2008 has recognized the fact that there is a surplus in the EAF and reduced the levy to 12% from the 15% rate which was being levied. The following is the key portion of the G.O relating to Sec 65. 39 The above is a classic example of how the Commissioner needs to point out the need to adjust rates to the Government based on the data regarding surplus in EAF and the Government in response to use its rule making power to adjust the levy accordingly. Of course lot more needs to be done here as there is still a huge surplus that is accumulated and even the current rate of 12% needs to be further reduced based on the ratio of the judgment in State of Maharashtra v The Salvation Army Western India Territory AIR 1975 SC846 The other aspect is that though according to the provisions of the Act the contributions have to be credited to the Endowments Administration Fund which vests with the Commissioner. In practice the contributions seem to be directly credited to the treasury which needs to be corrected to be fully compliant with the Act and the related Court rulings. 40 5.1.5 Working of Andhra Pradesh Endowments Administration Fund The Contribution to the EAF collected through Sec 65 of the Act will be classified as “fee” instead of a “tax” only if the following conditions listed in AIR 1956 Mad 491 Shri H.H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar, Senior Swamiar Of Puthige Mutt And Ors. vs The Commissioner Of Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments And Anr are satisfied. (1) The levy can be justified as intra vires the State Legislature, only if it falls within the ambit of Entry 47 read with Entry 28 in List III of VII Schedule of the Constitution. (2) There should be a quid pro quo basis to justify the levy as a fee. The co-relation between the fee levied and the services rendered should appear ex facie the legislative provision. The co-relation must exist both in the purpose of the levy and the extent of the levy, that is, the co-relation should be between the actual levy and the expense incurred by the Government for rendering the services for which the levy is made. (3) The services rendered by the Government, which constitute the quid pro quo for the levy of the fee, must be incidental to a system of regulation. (4) That regulation itself must be solely on considerations of public interests. (5) That Statutory regulation should not exceed the limits of a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The point no (2) above was discussed in detail in the context of the surplus that has been accrued in the EAF and what should be done in light of the amendment to Sec 65 through Act 33 of 2007 which was done in response to the pending challenge to Act 34 of 1997 in the Supreme Court. We now need to look at the working of the EAF and check if in Andhra Pradesh we satisfy the conditions (3), (4) and (5) laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court Bench. If we do not satisfy these requirements then the Committee needs to suggest corrective measures so that the same can be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending petitions. Combining (3) & (4) conditions above we find that the “fee” charged should constitute the quid pro quo with regards to the services rendered by the Government through the Endowments Department, it must be incidental to a system of regulation which is solely on considerations of public interests. We have already established in the previous sub-section that the principle of quid pro quo has been violated given the fact that the fund has accrued surplus to the tune of over 160 Crores (with nominal interest). What exactly is Public Interest Here? The Agamas have defined this very clearly. The following are extracts from the book “The Agama Encyclopedia” by Prof S.K Ramachandra Rao Vol 3 41 “Because the safety, security, wealth and welfare of the country depends upon regular worship ( six times, three or two times a day) conducted in the temple, the ruler of the land or the people must see that the worship is not interrupted due to the penury of the priest. It is prescribed therefore that endowments of lands are made upon the priest free of taxes so that his family may live in comfort”. (Pg 174) The following Circular No 17/96 (V2/24829/96), Dt 1-8-96 shows that the problem with regards to F.D.Rs. Encashing of F.D.R and raising loan on F.D.Rs by the Executive Officers and Temple Clerks – Instructions Issues Order – It is brought to the notice of the Commissioner, Endowments Department A.P, Hyderabad that in certain cases the Executive Officers of temples are illegally pledging and even encashing the F.D.Rs without notice of higher authorities by producing false permission letters; purported to have been issued by the concerned Assistant Commissioners. In certain cases the clerks themselves are resorting to such fraudulent methods taking advantage of the lenient attitude of the E.Os. The Bank authorities are also permitting such fraudulent act on the basis of false letters purported to have been issued with the signature of the Assistant Commissioner. These irregularities are found frequently for some time past though FDRs are supposed to stand in the Joint name of the E.O and the Commissioner, in fact prior permission of the Commissioner, Endowments Department A.P, Hyderabad is necessary for encashment of FDR or even raise loan on the FDRs as provided under statutory rules issued under Section 29(5) of the Act and Rule (4) of the Rules framed under Section 134 of the Endowments Act 30/87. Hence no Officer of the Department is competent to accord permission either to encash the FDR or raise loan on the FDR except with prior permission of the Commissioner of Endowments. It seems the bank authorities are not aware of the above rule position and due to the fact that the rule position is not enlightened to them and in result the temple clerks or E.Os are being permitted to encash the FDRs fraudulently giving room for large scale misappropriation of temple funds. In case the Bank authorities insist the permission letter of the Commissioner before entertaining any transaction concerning to the FDRs as required under Statutory rules mentioned supra, the illegal acts on the part of unscrupulous elements would have been prevented to a large extent. Hence all the Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners of this Department are requested to intimate the above rule position to the Bank….. The above circular did not have much impact and the mis-appropriation continued and finally the following proviso was added to Sec 29 by the amendment Act 33 of 2007 to plug this. Sec 29 (3) (b) (iv) Provided that the Executive Officer shall not encash the fixed deposit certificates pertaining to any scheme or specific endowment under any circumstances. 42 5.1.6 Analysis of Expenditure of Endowments Administration Fund The Madras High Court Judgment has put down the following requirement for the contribution so that it is not considered a tax but a fee (3) The services rendered by the Government, which constitute the quid pro quo for the levy of the fee, must be incidental to a system of regulation. Therefore the Expenditure should only be incidental i.e should not reach exorbitant proportions which in turn will require higher levies etc. 5.1.7 TTD’s Contribution to Endowments Administration Fund The TTD is the richest religious institution in the State and the Committee has noticed that the TTD is actually contributing only Rs 50 lakhs to the EAF every year and there is a longstanding dispute on this matter between the Endowments Department and the TTD. The following is wording of Sec 65 relating to the TTD in the Act (2) In respect of the services rendered by the Govt, and their employees, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, shall be liable to pay the Government annually from the income derived by it, a contribution of seven per centum of such annual income or rupees fifty lakhs in lump sum whichever is higher (3) The contribution which an institution or endowment or Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is liable to pay under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be paid annually to the Endowments Administration Fund. The Government has also issued Annual Contribution Rules [G.O.Ms.No 638, Revenue (Endowments –I), Dt 30-6-1989, published in R.S. to Part I (Ext) A.P Gazette, Dt 8-9-1989 at page 31] which is applicable to all Institutions including TTD. Rule 3: The Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees or the Executive Officer as the case may be of the concerned Institution or Endowments shall submit in Form-I appended hereto, to the Commissioner before the 31st May of each year on the following items relating to previous financial year (a) a statement of receipts and charges (cash and kind) in Form-II under each budget head; (b) a statement in Form-III showing the amounts claimed as deductions under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 65 of the said Act. (c) a statement in Form –IV showing the expenditure incurred under various items of cost of production and income derived from lands in the direct cultivation of the concerned institution or endowment. (d) a statement in Form –V showing the special staff appointed solely for work relating to collection of rents due, the designation of different posts, the monthly pay and allowances of such special staff and the amount of rent collected by them. The TTD claims deduction of substantial portion of the Receipts under Explanation-I of Sec 65(5) (b) which reads as follows:Explanation (1):- The following items of receipts shall not be deemed to be income for the purposes of this section namely; 43 a. advances and deposits recovered and loans taken or recovered. b. deposits made as security by employees lesses, or contractors and other deposits if any; c. withdrawals from the banks or of investments d. amount recovered towards costs awarded by Courts e. sale proceeds of religious books and publications where such sales are undertaken as an unremunerative enterprise with a view to propagate religion. f. sale proceeds of jewels, vahanams, provisions or other articles or livestock purchased by the charitable or religious institution or endowments g. donations in cash or kind by the donors as contributions to capital; h. abhayams or voluntary contributions received in cash or kind for a specified service in the charitable or religious institution or endowment and expended on such service. i. actual driage of the agricultural produce or the articles from immovable properties or one per centum of the value of such receipts during the financial year, whichever is less; and j. audit recoveries. The deductions are claimed mainly under (h) clause listed above. Further the TTD also claims the salary and wages paid to the staff as part of expenditure to be deducted in computing the assessable income under Sec 65(5). The following is clear from the below extracts from the TTD Board resolution 44 The above approach is in variance with what is followed in all the other religious institutions with regards to computation of assessable income under Sec 65 of the Act. The TTD is also not meeting the requirement of Sec 57 (2) (a) (i) of the Endowments Act 30/87 Provided that the salaries of the religious and secular establishment shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65 As the income under Section 65 is computed to be nil and therefore the salaries are not within the 30% ceiling which is currently being applied to all temples. Some of the above discrepancies in calculation of income by TTD under Sec 65 has been noted by the Government which issued G.O.Ms No: 816 Revenue (Endowments – III) Department, dt 29.10.2002 and also arrived at an approximate figure for the arrears due towards EAF and CGF. The Commissioner Endowments Department also issued a notice ROC No. P4/28846/2002 claiming arrears towards EAF to the tune of Rs 170 Crores in the period 1987-88 to 2003-2004. The TTD is continuing to maintain that it is due to pay only Rs 50 Lakhs as the contribution to EAF as its income under Sec 65 is nil. This has serious implications as it does not meet the ceiling under Sec 57 of the Act. There are also serious implications in certain other sections that have reference to income under Sec 65. 45 While the arrears due towards EAF is one aspect the other aspect is to ensure that an uniform rule of computation of income is applied to TTD with immediate effect as well as it is being done for even small temples who cannot make ends meet but have been contributing 15% of their assessable income to EAF. Further under Rule 9 of Annual Contribution Rules [G.O.Ms.No 638, Revenue (Endowments –I), Dt 30-6-1989, published in R.S. to Part I (Ext) A.P Gazette, Dt 8-9-1989 at page 31] Rule 9. Where in any financial year, a Charitable or Religious Institution or Endowment or Dharmadayam is unable to pay the contribution due to bonafide financial difficulties caused by mismanagement of the previous trustees or due to any other sufficient cause, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, waive the collection of such amount in full or in part, or direct that the contribution or part thereof be collected in installments not exceeding ten as the Commissioner may determine, but within a period not more than three years: Provided that where the amount to be waived exceeds five thousand rupees in respect of any institution, Endowment or Dharmadayam, the Commissioner shall obtain the approval of the Government before passing orders under this rule. Given that there is already considerable surplus in the EAF and the need of the hour is to actually seed the fund under Sec 65-A for payment of salaries to thousands of impoverished employees the Government in consultation with the Commissioner should consider issuing a G.O for a phased contribution to the fund under Sec 65-A by the TTD and the same amount to be simultaneously waived under Rule 9 as part of the pending arrears to the EAF due from TTD. The above approach towards arrears from TTD should also be used for all other temples which will net a further 38 Crores which is the arrears due towards EAF from all other temples. 5.2 Sec 65-A, Archakas, Other Office holders and servant’s salary and other Emolument Fund: The present contributions to the following funds are CGF 5% including Dhoopa Deepa Naivaidyam Scheme, EAF 12% and varying percentages under 65A, Audit Fund 1.5%, Archaka Welfare Fund 3%. As seen 51.5% is going as contribution to different funds leaving only about 49% for other rightful activities to be undertaken by the institutions like the temple rituals, fairs and festivals and Dharma Pracharam etc. It would not be correct to enhance these percentages, however from the figures that are available with us we find that there is lesser expenditure than what is collected in respect of EAF. Nearly an amount of 170 crores is said to be the surplus. It is therefore recommended that only 8% of the EAF to be drawn towards EAF to be operated from Treasury and the remaining 4% to be credited to a Fund to be created and would be merged in the fund to be collected under Section 65-A of the Endowments Act. In addition since the temples will be audited through Management of the Fund under Section 65-A the audit fee amounting to 1.5% should also be credited to the Fund under Section 65-A from the EAF. Thus, the total extra contribution would be 4%+1.5% = 5.5% to the Fund under Section 65-A over and above the contribution towards salaries. 5.3 Common Good Fund and Other Statutory Funds 46 5.3.1 TTD Contribution to CGF and Archaka Welfare Fund. As in the case of EAF there is a dispute between the Endowments Department and the TTD on contribution to Common Good Fund and the Archaka Welfare Fund. The Government through G.O.Ms.No.816 Revenue (Endowments – III) Department, dt 29.10.2002 arrived at an approximate figure for the arrears due towards EAF and CGF it also directed that till such a time as the actual figures are ascertained an amount of Rs 20 Crores be credited to the CGF. The TTD has been crediting an amount of Rs 5 Crores per annum towards CGF after the GO was issued. The Commissioner Endowments Department also issued a notice Roc No. P4/28846/2002 claiming an arrears of Rs 84.57 Crores towards CGF from 1987-1988 to 2003-2004 further another notice Roc.No. N1/63494/2001 was also given claiming an arrears of Rs 60 Crores due to the Archaka Welfare Fund. With regards to the computation for contribution towards CGF under Sec 116 there has been some dispute and so as to make this uniform with other sections in the Act the same was amended through Act 33 of 2007, further Sec 161 has also been introduced to bring clarity on contribution to Archaka Welfare Fund. The amended Sections read as follows 1. Sec 116 (6) (b) of the Act has been amended which now reads as follows The budget shall also make provision for the payment of an amount of five per centum of the annual income as referred to under Section 65 or rupees one crore twenty-five lakhs whichever is higher to the Common Good Fund created under Section 70 2. Sec 161 has been inserted by the amended Act which reads as follows Sec 161.Archakas and Other Employees Welfare Fund :- (1) Every Religious Charitable Institutions other than Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam whose annual income exceeds rupees twenty lakhs per annum as defined under Section 65 shall be liable to contribute annually 3% of its income to the Archakas and Other Employees Welfare Fund constituted and administered through a Trust Board created for the purpose. Provided that Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall contribute such sum to the Fund as the Government may specify from time to time (2) The fund constituted under sub-section (1) shall be utilized for the welfare of Archakas and other employees working in the religious, charitable Institutions and endowments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Trust registered for the purpose With the above amendments it is very clear as to what amount should be contributed towards both CGF and AWF in terms of the percentage of the annual income. Further the TTD has claimed that it only owes Rs 20 Crores to the AWF as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its 1996 judgment To effectuate the scheme, tentatively a Consolidated Fund of Rs 75 Crores would be set up as corpus and procedure would be evolved by the Government as to, in which nationalized banks or income yielding Govt Securities the same would be deposited; as to who would operate and disburse the income accrued from the fund from time to time, subject to further revisions, if any, the above consolidated fund, the TTD is directed to deposit a sum of Rs 20 Crores into the fund during financial year 1996-1997 by end of 47 June 1996. Each financial year a sum of Rs 10 crores be deposited till the Corpus fund of Rs 75 Crores is reached. The Government is also directed to call upon other major temples like Narasimha Swamy temple, Yadgirigutta, Shri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple Karimnagar, Ugranarasimha swamy temple, Visakapatnam, Satyanarayana swamy temple Annavaram and Kanakadurgamba temple, Vijaywada etc. with annual income of Rs 20 lakhs or more, to contribute to the said fund of Rs 75 crores. These temples may deposit the amount in annual instalments spread over a year not exceeding five years. During the financial year 1996-1997 a sum of Rs 5 Crores by each of the major temples may be directed to be deposited and in subsequent four years a sum of Rs One crore every year may be directed to be deposited (Para 140) The TTD has claimed that the Supreme Court has directed it to deposit only Rs 20 Crores while the balance should be deposited by the other major temples. The fact is that while the direction to TTD is to continue to deposit 10 Crores every year till the figure of Rs 75 Crores is reached the direction to other temples is qualified through a “may” clause. The direction to TTD is clearly a stronger one compared to that of the other temples. 6 Regularization of services of the employees working in the cadre of NMR, Consolidated, Contract basis, Daily Wages and Outsourcing etc, in all the A.P Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Department We find that large number of employees are covered as follows: A sizeable no. of employees are recruited not only because of the needs of temples, but also because of pressures brought in by somebody or the other. Even while making such appointments, there is no rational or uniformity in fixing the pay for such employees. In fact, no action seems to have been taken against the defaulting executives, though ban on recruitment has been in vogue since 1993. Existence of such large no. of employees inspite of ban proves lack of discipline. Taking into consideration the present state it is recommended that all those employees who have been in employment for 10 years and above can be regularized and they should be accommodated in regular posts which are kept vacant. For this purpose, they should be considered not only for being posted in the temples where they are presently working in if there are regular posts but also other temples if there are no vacancies in the parent temple. Because of the financial burden caused by such regularization, we recommend that they be accommodated in the basic scale of the job into which they are recruited. In respect of those who are employed for less than 10 years, we recommend that they should be phased out from the employment and should be given priority in future employment, if needed 48 7 Summary of the Recommendations The summary is not exhaustive. It includes only some of the recommendations made in the report. 1. PRC benefits to be extended to all temples where expenditure on establishment is 30% or less. a. The exceptions are the eight temples which are enjoying it presently. With this 11 RJC temples are covered. b. Computation of 30% should exclude charges on police, pensions paid out of temple funds and not out of interest on pension funds 2. G.O.Ms.No. 820 Revenue (Endowments-I) Dt 1-7-2008 to be modified to include all temples under the purview of Sec 65-A and also the contribution to be fixed at a uniform 25% rate. Over and above 25% each temple would be allowed to spend on contingent, outsourcing etc., staff 5%. 3. Pay Scales of Religious Staff to be revised to be in line with Administrative staff with reference to application of PRC Scales. 4. As a priority the implementation of any Pay revision should be done with priority given to Archakas and other Religious staff as recommended by the Pay Scales Committee agreed to by the Government and recorded in the Supreme Court Judgment AIR 1997 SC 3702. 5. The Institutions which are within the 30% expenditure limit for both Religious and Administrative staff after implementing PRC 2010 to be given PRC 2010 scales through the fund under Sec 65-A. 6. Schemes to be prepared as contemplated under Sec.144 of the Act within 6 months. 7. The Institutions which are above the 30% expenditure limit for both Religious and Administrative Staff should be given a scheme through the fund under Sec 65-A till such time as their expenditure remains above the 30% limit. As and when the expenditure on implementing PRC 2010 Scales goes below 30% limit they shall be extended the PRC 2010 scales through the fund under Sec 65-A. The temple employees should make efforts to enhance the income levels of the temples by providing better services to devotees, popularizing temple activities, Conducting Spiritual discourses, Cultural programs, Bhajans, other popular programs in Temples etc. The Temples may be extended support for a limited time from the 65-A fund against a time bound Temple Revival Action Plan (TRAP) given by the concerned Temple administration. The TRAP should cover ways of enhancing Revenue and cutting down expenses, thus complying the 30% statutory limit. A suitable scheme should be designed for successful implementation TRAP concept involving eligibility, minimum criteria, performance parameters, mile stones with time bound Action Plan, Approving authority, monitoring mechanism etc. Temporary exemption may be given for the Temples which get approval under TRAP Scheme. Such support to Temples under 65-A should be extended subject to close scrutiny and monitoring of actual performance against TRAP. 8. No further recruitment of employees of any type for temples. If any cadre strength is to be added it can be done only in temples which are below the 30% limit and such posts have to be filled from the excess staff in other temples as all of them are being paid salary from the same fund under Sec 65-A. The overall staffing should be reduced through attrition. 49 9. A Scheme will have to be prepared on the basis of EPF or like the one contemplated by Executive Officer, Dwaraka Tirumala to meet the pensionary requirements of the temple employees 10. A Sub-Committee of the Dharmika Parishad should be formed to administer the fund under Sec 65-A. This Committee should also look at optimizing the staff strengths and move excess staff to institutions where there is need for more staff. Optimize on Executive Officers and Managers and get the same to be performed by Hereditary Trustee or Archaka wherever possible. Suggest ways to reduce expenditure in many temples and bridge the gap between the Gross Income and Assessable Income so as to increase the Assessable Income which will allow such temples to get within the 30% limit allowing implementation of PRC 2010 scales. Large chunks of land belonging to Endowments Institutions that is required to be freed from encroachment and increase of revenue from the same and the excess staff can be made responsible for the same and a separate wing can be created to do this. There is also Crores of money pending from the Government relating to compensation for the Endowments lands that have been acquired that needs to be claimed at a war footing. 11. Compassionate appointments only on the lines of system obtaining in the Government. 12. The Endowments Administration Fund has to be vested with the Commissioner and the payments have to be made to this Fund by the Institutions. The Commissioner in turn will reimburse the Government the expenditure they incur. This recommendation is as per the provisions of the Act. 13. The same uniform methodology for computation of income being applied in the case of all temples should be applied for TTD in computing assessable income under Sec 65 of the Act. 14. Given that there is already considerable surplus in the EAF and the need of the hour is to actually seed the fund under Sec 65-A for payment of salaries to thousands of impoverished employees the Government in consultation with the Commissioner should consider issuing a G.O for a phased contribution to the fund under Sec 65-A by the TTD and the same amount to be simultaneously waived under Rule 9 of Annual Contribution Rules [G.O.Ms.No 638, Revenue (Endowments –I), Dt 30-6-1989, published in R.S. to Part I (Ext) A.P Gazette, Dt 8-9-1989 at page 31] as part of the pending arrears to the EAF due from TTD which is to the tune of hundreds of Crores. The same approach to also be adopted for the arrears due from all other temples towards EAF. 15. The Government will pay salaries of the Endowments Employees from the treasury as they are doing now but will not claim a refund from the EAF as there is a surplus with the Government to the tune of Rs 165 Crores which has to be adjusted towards the payment for the service. The expenditure towards salaries etc has to be reduced to 25 Crores per annum and with that the surplus should last for a minimum of 5 Years. 16. The levy which is currently uniform 12% has to be reduced to 8% to the EAF under Sec 65 (1) .Simultaneously this 4% which is saved should be credited to the fund under Sec 65-A so as to create a surplus to enable better salaries for over 20,000 employees. The same should be accomplished through a fresh G.O on the same lines as G.O.Ms.No 928 50 dt.29-7-2008. Similar principle was used to increase the contribution to CGF in this G.O while simultaneously reducing the contribution to EAF. 17. Once the surplus with the Government is exhausted the Government will claim a refund annually for the salary paid from the Commissioner, who will pay the same from the Endowments Administration Fund. Simultaneously the actual levy to the EAF and the fund under Sec 65-A will be revised and a new G.O issued with actual levies prescribed based on the prevailing conditions at that time and this should be done by the Andhra Pradesh Dharmika Parishad as envisaged by the Select Committee. 18. The Institutions also need to credit the Audit Fee under Sec 65 (1) into the EAF as required by the statue under Sec 69(2)(a)(iii). This should not be credited to the treasury directly. 19. C.G.F, Audit Fees, Archaka Welfare Fund, contributions level to be maintained. 20. The following measures to be implemented to streamline the functioning of the Endowments Department so that the levy collected is treated as a fee and not a tax by the courts. a. Government to transfer its powers under Sec 152 (3) of the Act. b. The Endowments Department should freeze all further recruitment, reduce staff through attrition. There are about 562 posts which are vacant. They should not be filled. Further the new G.O.Ms.No 336 Dt 15-11-2010 which allows increase in number of Executive Officers posts should be re-examined with reference to our recommendation elsewhere. c. The following Circulars which were given in 1997 to have the senior RJC/DC cadre people working as Executive Officers to actually perform the Supervision, Inspection and Verification of records of temples within the area of the Big temple specified in the annexures to the Circulars needs to be urgently implemented. This will reduce the expenditure of the District Offices which is now to the tune of Rs 12 Crores. i. Circular Rc.No J1/34464/97, ( Circular 22/97), Dt 25-6-97 Inspection of the Institutions and Endowments – authorization u/s 12(1) r/w Sec 8(1) of the Endowments Act 30/87 by the Commissioner- Orders Issued. ii. Circular No 28/97 in Rc. No. J1/34464/97 Dt 31-7-97. Supervision, Inspection & verification of records etc, of the institutions classified u/s 6(a), (b) , (c) & (d) of the Act – Entrusting to RJC, DC, E.Os of RJC, DC & AC cadre in Multi-Zone-I – Instructions Issued. iii. Circular No 32/97 in Rc. No. J1/34464/97 Dt 2-8-97. Supervision, Inspection & verification of records etc, of the institutions classified u/s 6(a), (b) , (c) & (d) of the Act – Entrusting to RJC, DC, E.Os of RJC, DC & AC cadre in Multi-Zone-II – Instructions Issued. iv. Circular No 33/97 in Rc. No. J1/34464/97 Dt 5-8-97. Supervision, Inspection & verification of records etc, of the institutions classified u/s 6(a), (b) , (c) & (d) of the Act – Entrusting to RJC, DC, E.Os of RJC, DC & AC cadre in Multi-Zone-III – Instructions Issued. 21. The Committee recommends that salary and emoluments for all Regular Employees on regular and consolidated Pay scales in all temples should be paid through the Fund under Sec 65-A Archakas, Other Office holders and Servants’ Salary and other Emolument 51 Fund. ( Same recommendation as in Sec 2.3G.O.Ms.No. 820 Revenue (Endowments-I) Dt 1-7-2008 to be modified to include all temples under the purview of Sec 65-A and also the contribution to be fixed at a uniform 25% rate. ( Same recommendation as in Sec 2.3) 22. TTD has to contribute Rs.30 Crores or 3% of its annual income under Sec 65 whichever is higher to the fund under Sec 65-A. The Government in consultation with the Commissioner should consider issuing a G.O for this contribution to be simultaneously waived under Rule 9 of Annual Contribution Rules [G.O.Ms.No 638, Revenue (Endowments –I), Dt 30-6-1989, published in R.S. to Part I (Ext) A.P Gazette, Dt 8-91989 at page 31] as part of the pending arrears to the EAF due from TTD which is to the tune of hundreds of Crores. Further the pending arrears to the tune of Rs 38 Crores from all other temples to EAF should also be contributed to the fund under Sec 65-A and similar approach to waive as in the case of TTD to be followed. 23. TTD should contribute at 5% of the annual income under Sec 65 towards CGF as required by the amended Sec 116. Currently TTD is contributing only 5 Crores per annum towards CGF which needs revision. 24. TTD also needs to contribute the arrears due to both CGF and AWF. 25. All major temples with annual income exceeding Rs 20 Lakhs have to contribute 3% of their annual income as per the new inserted Sec 161 of the amended Act towards Archakas Welfare Fund. 26. Regularize contingent, NMR employees who have put in 10 years of continuous service. 27. It is essential to limit the pay and establishment expenses within the statutory limit of 30% of annual income under section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Endowments Act. It is important to ensure adequate funds for the normal capital jobs and maintenance of Temples in addition to creating better amenities to the devotees. It is also essential to keep aside funds for spread of Temple activities in the catchment area in order to increase footfalls for the Temples which will result in consequential increase in Revenue to the Temples. The Temple employees have to appreciate that increasing Revenues will certainly result in increase in the 30% share towards establishment expenses. 28. Many of the Temples are incurring substantial expenses on security related issues which are recovered from the Temples and included in the establishment expenses. It may be noted that the Government is not recovering such security related expenses from other religious institutions / bodies, in fact in all its fairness the Government should adopt non discriminatory policy and should not recover security related expenses incurred in connection with Temples from the concerned Temples. It is the duty of Government to maintain Law and Order in the State. Hence, it should meet all the security related expenses of Temples from its own budget. 29. Further the Government should immediately pay / reimburse the cost of land and other assets acquired by it, to the concerned Temples in order to augment the resources of the Temples which will result in enhancing the Income generating capacity of the Temples. 30. The Committee feels that it is essential for the Temple Administration and Employees to implement the real spirit of Hindu “DHARMIC” principles in order to ensure sanctity of Temples for maximum devotee satisfaction and proliferation of “DHARMIC” culture. In this background the Committee suggests that the following condition should be made mandatory for all the employees and for all the Temples: 52 Strict Code of Conduct covering do’s & don’ts, dress code, behavioral etiquette, communication with devotees, prohibition of alcohol & non-veg. consumption etc., should be enforced 31. It is essential to bring suitable Internal Control and Accounting Discipline in the Temples in order to ensure transparency and prevent leakages, hence it is suggested: a. Annual Accounts of all the Temples should be closed and got Audited on or before 90 days of the accounting period and Audited Accounts should be submitted to the Commissioner thereon b. Quarterly Returns covering Physical and Financial performance, duly certified by local Auditor should be submitted within 45 days of the end of the Quarter c. All 11 major temples should appoint a reputed auditor to audit their accounts. A panel of the best auditors will be prepared by CED and allotted to each temple. d. All major temples (11+ DC Cadre also) have huge resources but with very poor/hardly no financial management system. There are no qualified persons to guide the finance wing in the temples. Infact a Finance and Audit section should be created immediately. 32. The Endowments Department should immediately takes steps to ensure that spirit of the Endowments Act 1987 by enforcing that all the persons in the Department and Temples strictly profess Hindu Religion and anyone who ceases to profess Hindu Religion ceases to be an employee of the Endowments Department (Section 3(2) & Section 29(3) of the Act) 33. The Department, utilizing the powers given under Section 33(2) of the Act should design suitable recruitment procedure & recruitment exam content covering SMRITHIS, UPANISHATHS, PURANAS and VEDAS in order to ensure only people with basic Hindu Vedic knowledge enter into Temple services. The depth of examination may be designed separately for Officers and other Administrative Staff but should necessarily cover the above subjects. This procedure is essential in order to bridge the present disconnect between Temple employees and Hindu Dharma. DR.M.V.SOUNDARARAJAN K.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY P.JAGANNADHAM NAIDU M.V.S.PRASAD, I.A.S. (Retd.) 53 ANNEXURE – I W.A.No.1789 OF 2004 ALONGWITH W.P.No.24815 of 2005 and W.A.No.150 of 2006:A temple employee is appointed by trustee under Section 35 of the Act read with Officeholders Rules. The salary and emoluments of temple employee are paid from out of the temple funds, which are provided in the temple budget under Section 57(2) of the Act. The disciplinary power and control over temple employee vests in the trustee under Section 37 of the Act and procedure for dealing with misconduct is provided under Disciplinary Rules. Even where trustee fails to take action against an erring temple employee, Commissioner or other department officer cannot take action directly. They have to first advise the trustee or EO (if such EO is there) to take action under Section 37 of the Act failing which – then only – Commissioner or other department officer can take action against erring temple employee. Thus there is no direct relationship of master-servant/employer-employee between commissioner/ Government and temple employee. A legal regime for the purpose of regulating the temple administration is only in place and there is no direct control by the Government over temple employees nor the salary of temple employee, is paid by Government. There would not be any change in the situation even where a temple employee is authorized to be PIM under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act to discharge functions and duties of EO. The view of the Supreme Court in the 1997 Judgment AIR 1997 SC 3702 The payment of salary to the Government servants depends on diverse factors like cost of index etc Article 27 of the Constitution prohibits spending of any expenses for promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomnination from out of the funds flowing from the public exchequer. Resultantly constitutional probibition stands in the way of extending to Archakas and other Office holders such benefits as are granted to Government servants. Secondly salary has linkage with the income derived by the Charitable or religious institutions or endowments. As agreed earlier the salary and other allowances, subject to cadre strength are required to be rationalized based upon the income The view of the Government as per G.O.Ms.No 858 on the recommendation of the Payscales Committee of 1997. Parity between the pay-scales and allowances of the staff of the Endowments Institutions and the Government need not be established. Any such parity will not be rational as the scales of pay and allowances of the staff of the Endowments Institutions are determined by their income and there cannot be any automacity in the increase of their pay and allowances as and when the Govt revises pay structure to their employees. It is desirable to delink and design separate service rules and packages and emoluments to suit the Endowments Institutions…. 54 ANNEXURE – II AIR 1997 SC 3702 “in paragraph 132 of the Judgment, this Court mentioned about total number of temples and of temples which are assessable institutions and the income being derived by them. It observed that the said information was furnished for the first time in the written arguments after the arguments had concluded and Judgment was reserved” (Para 24) “The Committee has gone into this aspect, in the light of the directions issued and has recommended that the temples whose annual income is less than Rs.5.00 lakhs may be allowed to be managed by the respective management of the temples etc. but be supervised by the Department as is being now done so that the management of such temples may be allowed to pay such remuneration to the archakas. In lieu of salary, the properties given to them may be retained with the Archakas for enjoyment subject to rendering service depending upon the income of the respective temples as per the prevailing circumstances. We are informed that a sizeable part of the temples would come within that category and, therefore, the Government has accepted the classification with the rider: “Temple with such abnormally low income may be left to fend for themselves”. The recommendation of the Committee has thus been accepted by the Government. Under Section 154 of the Act, the Government by a notification may exempt from the purview of any of the provisions of the Act or any of the rules made thereunder (a) any charitable institutions of endowments administration of which was or is for the time being vested in the Government either directly or through the Committee or a Treasurer endowment appointed for the purpose or the Official Trustees or the Administrator General etc. Any institution or endowment is exempted and may likewise vary or cancel such exemption. In view of the above provision, it would be open to the State Government to issue a notification published in the official Gazette exempting such institutions subject to the above recommendation and such orders as may be mentioned therein or deemed appropriate” (Para 26). Thus the recommendation as to gradual reduction of secular staff employed in the aforesaid institutions is a welcome suggestion. The Government equally has accepted the suggestion as under : (Para 28) “The suggestion to reduce secular staff gradually is accepted. For this purpose, the future vacancies that arise due to retirement etc should not be filled up till the level of establishment is brought within acceptable limit” Accordingly the suggestion for gradual reduction of secular staff is quite reasonable so that the management and upkeep of the religious institutions would remain within the budgetary provisions and that they could be properly, effectively and efficiently be managed and maintained. All possible steps should be taken to exempt such temples from the purview of Sec 144 of the Act. The Government has therefore considered this suggestion as feasible and accordingly accepted the same. As seen Constitutionality of Sec 144 has already been upheld but as mentioned in the Judgment in respect of certain class of temples, the necessary material was placed before this court in the written submissions after the conclusion of arguments and not during the course of arguments. Consequently direction was given to the Government to look into the matter. Under these circumstances, the Committee has made the above recommendation and the Government had accepted the same. In light of the power, the Government have to exempt under Sec 154 of the Act, the Government is given liberty to issue a notification 55 and exempt such classified temples as suggested by the Committee from the purview of Sec 144 of the Act.(Para 29) “Therefore, permission is granted to the Government to bring about a suitable amendment to Section 144, though its constitutionality has already been upheld by this Court” (Para 34). The Andhra Pradesh High Court in AP Cooperative Societies vs The State of AP in WA 464 of 2001 made the following observation “A recent decision of the Supreme Court at this stage may be noticed. Consequent upon the directions given by Supreme Court in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs State of AP a scheme for welfare of archakas and servants of temple was formulated. The scheme postulated that temples with annual income less than 5 lakhs should be left to fend for themselves. In lieu of salary the properties given to them may be retained by the archakas for enjoyment subject to rendering service depending upon the income of the respective temples as per prevailing circumstances…” The Department in its written affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in pending Review Petitions had made the following submission It is further submitted that even prior to the Amendment Act 33 of 2007 also, even though, there are about 30,000 Institutions classified as (C) category in Section 6 of Act No. 30 of 1987, there are departmental Executive Officers/Managers for only about 4000 (C) category Institutions in view of their vast landed properties, encroachments, litigation etc. (Para 9 Additional Affidavit filed in Oct 2008 in R.P.C No. 2375 of 1997 in I.A.No.3 in T.C.No 170 of 1988.) 56 ANNEXURE – III W.P.M.P.No 15644 of 2008 in W.P.No 12134 of 2008 This court is rather shocked and surprised to note that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments had passed an order dated. 1-7-2006, according permission for engagement of the petitioner as Archaka of the Temple, on a megre pay of Rs. 600/per month, ie., Rs. 20/- per day. The plight of the petitioner is that even that amount was not paid. It is not known as to how many administrative staff members are functioning in the temple. By the next date of hearing, the Deputy Commissioner shall submit a report, as to the amount being incurred towards the salaries of the other employees in the temple, and its total income. The emoluments permitted in case of the petitioner are not even 1/4th of the unskilled labour. Pending further orders, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid salary, at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month, on or before 5th of every month, and the petitioner shall render service with full devotion to the temple on regular basis. If there is any paucity of funds of the temple, the Deputy Commissioner shall reduce the strength of other establishment staff.” W.P.M.P No 32293 of 2009 in W.P No. 24737 of 2008 Though the order impugned in this writ petition is dated 07.12.2006, the 3rd respondent made an attempt to assume office only on 13.10.2008 by addressing a letter. It is stated that the Executive Officer was appointed for the temple for the first time and that the income of the Temple is not sufficient even for maintenance. Hence, there shall be interim stay as prayed for on condition that it shall be open to the 3rd respondent to oversee the functioning of the Temple without claiming salary from the income of the Temple. The petitioner shall under obligation submit accounts periodically to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments. W.P.M.P NO: 27893 of 2008 in W.P.NO: 21344 of 2008 Sri Anantha Bhogeswara Swamy Vari Temple had agricultural land of Acs. 6.20 cents in R.s.No. 454 and Acs. 2.84 cents in R.S.No. 455 of Vadapalli vallage, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated and possession thereof was taken on 5.1.1997 and 16.10.1998, respectively. So far no a single pie is paid as compensation. The Archaka of the temple had approached this court by filing this writ petition. From the instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, it is evident that the value of the land was tentatively arrived at Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. At this rate, the compensation payable comes roughly to Rs. 30,00,000/- together with interest and solatium. The compensation was not paid, due to non- release of funds by the Government. The result is that the temple is denied of income from the land as well as the compensation. This only shows how the Government is systematically reducing the religious institutions, to penury. There appears to be a sinister motive even to deny the compensation on the plea that the proceedings have lapsed, on account of failure to pas the award. This Court cannot remain as a silent spectator for such moves. 57 Pending further orders, it is directed that the District Collector, West Godvari, the second respondent herein, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs only) in favour of the fourth respondent temple, within a period of four weeks from today. The amount so paid shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the fourth respondent and the accrued interest shall be utilized for its activities. Necessary steps for passing the award shall also be taken, since the fourth respondent did not plead the ground of lapse of the proceedings. Writ Petition No.1792 of 2006 Sri Venkateswara Swami Temple, Karimnagar Town, had the cadre strength of one Junior Assistant, one night Watchman and one Attender. The Commissioner of Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is the competent authority to fix and revise the cadre strength of different categories of posts in the temples, depending upon their income and necessity. Though there exists only one post of Junior Assistant, the petitioners herein, who are the employees of other temples in the District, got themselves transferred to Sri Venkateshwara Swami Temple, Karimnagar, about ten years back. All the three Junior Assistants were functioning and the limited resources of the temple were siphoned of, in the form of salaries to them. To add a semblance of legality to this, the proceedings, dated 06-04-2002, were issued by the then Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, first respondent herein, sanctioning two more posts of Junior Assistants. The illegality was so brazen, that a clause was incorporated in the order to the effect that the persons/employees working over and above the cadre strength, must be adjusted against the sanctioned posts. In the recent past, the illegality that was continuing in this regard, was noticed by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Enforcement), Karimnagar. The state of affairs existing in the second respondent temple appears to have been brought to the notice of the first respondent. Soon thereafter, the first respondent issued orders, dated 02-012006, restoring the original cadre strength. Consequently, the posts held by the petitioners became surplus. Therefore, they have been transferred to their original places of appointment through proceedings, dated 20-01-2006. The petitioners challenge the proceedings, dated 02-01-2006 and 20-01-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the cadre strength was fixed by the first respondent in the year 2002, it could have been reduced or revised, only with the specific approval of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and that the orders passed by the first respondent, dated 02-01-2006, cannot be sustained in law. He further contends that the petitioners ought not to have been shifted in the middle of the academic year, even if the cadre strength has been reduced. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that a Junior Assistant, who is junior to the petitioners, is retained in the existing vacancy. Several other contentions were also urged. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that for all practical purposes, the sanctioned strength of Junior Assistants in the second respondent temple was only one and the orders issued in 2002 increasing it to three, cannot be said to be valid. He further contends that the first respondent has taken necessary corrective steps, to ensure that the expenditure in the second respondent temple does not exceed the prescribed limits. The submissions of Sri Kondaveeti Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, are to the same effect. It is ununderstandable as to how the petitioners came to be posted in the second respondent temple and functioned there, for the past ten years, when the sanctioned strength of 58 Junior Assistants was only one. The Vigilance Cell has pointed out that the establishment expenditure towards salary in the second respondent temple exceeded 50% of its income. Therefore, the first respondenthad to take immediate corrective steps.The challenge by the petitioners to the orders, dated 02-01-2006, reducing the cadre strength of Junior Assistants to one post, is on the ground that it ought to have been approved by the Commissioner. When the increase in cadre strength was effected without the approval of the Commissioner, his approval is not required for restoration. The contention that the first respondent is not the competent authority cannot, at all, be accepted. The reason is that it is the first respondent, who issued orders in 2002 increasing the cadre strength to three. If it was competent for him to enhance the cadre strength, it is equally competent for him to reduce it. At any rate, since the petitioners were posted in the second respondent temple even in the absence of any orders, increasing the cadre strength, the subsequent proceedings in the matter of revising the cadre strength become hardly of any relevance in their context. So far as the plea that the transfers are made effected in the middle of the academic year is concerned, it needs to be observed that there are instances, wherein, this Court interfered with such transfers and directed continuance of the employees, till the end of the academic year. Those, however, are the cases where the posts as such existed, and the controversy was limited to the one shifting an individual. In the instant case, the posts do not exist either from the beginning or at any rate with effect from 02-01-2006. Therefore, even if any indulgence can be shown to the petitioners on the ground of the transfer being in the middle of the academic year, it is impossible to continue them in the existing stations. It has already been noticed that continuance of the petitioners in the second respondent temple would result in violation of Section 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, which stipulates the limits of expenditure that can be incurred towards payment of salary. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 59 ANNEXURE-IV The original Sec 76 of the 1951 Madras Endowments Act read as follows "76. (1) In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers, every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Government annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prescribed. (2)Every religious institution, the annual income of which for the fasli year immediately preceding as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under sub- section (1), is hot less than one thousand rupees, shall pay to the Government annually, for meeting the cost of auditing its accounts, such further sum not exceeding one and a half per centum of its income as the Commissioner may determine. (3)The annual payments referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be made, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any scheme settled or deemed to be settled under this Act for the religious institution concerned. (4)The Government shall pay the salaries, allowances, pensions and other beneficial remuneration of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and other officers and servants (other than executive officers of religious institutions) employed for the purposes of this Act and the other expenses incurred for such purposes, including the expenses of Area Committees and the cost of auditing the accounts of religious institutions." The Hon’ble Madras High Court struck down the section and the matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court which in Endowments Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282, (for short 'Shirur Mutt case). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while agreeing with conclusion of the Madras High Court that the levy was not a “fee” but a “tax” did not agree that it offends Art 27 of the Constitution. But the object of the contribution under section 76 of the Madras Act is not the fostering or preservation of the Hindu religion or any denomination within it. The purpose is to see that religious trusts and institutions,, wherever they exist, are properly administered. It is a secular administration of the religion legislature seeks to control …..as enunciated endowments attached to the religious institutions are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist. There is no question of favouring any particular religion or religious denomination in such cases. In our opinion, article 27 of the Constitution is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made the observation that if the levy is a “tax” and not a “fee” then it would be beyond the competence of the State Legislature to enact such a provision. Therefore even if it does not offend Art 27 of the Constitution it is still liable to be struck down. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is not disputed that the legislation in the present case is covered by entries 10 and 28 of List III in Schedule VII of the Constitution. If the contribution payable under section 76 of the Act is a "fee", it may come under entry 47 of the Concurrent List which deals with " fees" in respect of any of 60 the matters included in that list. On the other hand, if it is a tax, as this particular tax has not been provided for in any specific entry in any of the three lists, it could come only under entry 97 of List I or article 248(1) of the Constitution and in either view the Union Legislature alone would be competent to legislate upon it. What follows in the Judgment in a description on the basic differences between a “fee” and a “tax” and finally the Hon’ble Supreme Court concludes as follows:But the material fact which negatives the theory of fees in the present case is that the money raised by levy of the contribution is not ear-marked or specified for defraying the expenses that the Government has to incur in performing the services. -All the collections go to the consolidated fund of the State and all the expenses have to be met not out of these collections but out of the general revenues by a proper method of appropriation as is done in case of other Government expenses. That in itself might not be conclusive, but in this case there is total absences of any co-relation between the expenses incurred by the Government and the amount raised by contribution under the provision of section 76 and in these circumstances the theory of a return or counterpayment or quid pro quo cannot have any possible application to this case. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the contribution levied under section 76 is a tax and not a fee and consequently it was beyond the power of the State Legislature to enact this provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out two key points which make the levy a “tax” and not a “fee” and thus beyond the power of the State Legislature to enact this provision. 1. All the collections go to the Consolidated Fund of the State. 2. Total absence of any correlation between the expenses incurred by the Government and the amount raised by contribution under the provision of Section 76 negativating the theory of a return or counter-payment or quid pro quo Subsequently the TN Legislature amended the Legislation to remove the defect in Sec 76 which was amended in the following way sub-sections (1) & (2) were changed from the original 1951 Act and a new subsection (5) was introduced. (1) In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their Officers and for defraying the expenses incurred on account of such services every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prescribed. (2) Every religious institution, the annual income of which, for the fasli year immediately preceding as calculated for the purposes of the levy of contribution under Sub-section (1) is not less than one thousand rupees, shall pay to the Commissioner annually, for meeting the cost of auditing its accounts, such further sum not exceeding one and a half per centum of its income as the Commissioner may determine (3)The annual payments referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be made, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any scheme settled or deemed to be settled under this Act for the religious institution concerned. (4)The Government shall pay the salaries, allowances, pensions and other beneficial remuneration of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners 61 and other officers and servants (other than executive officers of religious institutions) employed for the purposes of this Act and the other expenses incurred for such purposes, including the expenses of Area Committees and the cost of auditing the accounts of religious institutions." (5)Whenever there is any surplus after meeting all the charges referred to in the foregoing Sub-section (i.e., Sub-section (4)) it shall be lawful for the Commissioner, acting suo motu or on an application to make grants to poor and needy religious institutions for carrying out repairs and renovation subject to such rules as may be framed by Government in this regard. The Amending Act added three sections numbered as 80, 81 and 82. Section 80 directed that the Commissioner shall be a corporation sole. Section 81 provided for the establishment of a fund to be called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund, into which were to be paid all the contributions collected from religious institutions under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 76. That fund was vested in the Commissioner. Section 82 gave retrospective effect to these amended provisions, and it also validated the levies under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 76 as they stood before they were amended in 1954. 81. Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund.- (1) There shall be established a fund to be called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Fund. The Fund shall vest in the Commissioner. (2) The contribution payable under sub-section (1) of section 76 and the further sums payable under sub-section (2) of section 76 shall, when realised, be credited to the said Fund. It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to accept to the credit of the said Fund grants or loans from the Government and grants from any private person. The Commissioner shall, out of the said Fund, repay to the Government sums paid by the Government under sub-section (4) of section 76 and loans received from the Government." The above provisions were challenged in AIR 1956 Mad 491 Shri H.H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar, Senior Swamiar of Puthige Mutt And Ors. vs The Commissioner Of Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments And Anr. The Hon’ble Madras High Court laid down the following tests (1) The levy can be justified as intra vires the State Legislature, only if it falls within the ambit of Entry 47 read with Entry 28 in List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. (2) There should be a quid pro quo basis to justify the levy as a fee. The co-relation between the fee levied and the services rendered should appear ex facie the legislative provision. The co-relation must exist both in the purpose of the levy and the extent of the levy, that is, the co-relation should be between the actual levy and the expense incurred by the Government for rendering the services for which the levy is made. (3) The services rendered by the Government, which constitute the quid pro quo for the levy of the fee, must be incidental to a system of regulation. (4) That regulation itself must be solely on considerations of public interests. 62 (5) That Statutory regulation should not exceed the limits of a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Hon’ble High Court made the following observation with regards to the duty of the Government to prescribe the actual levy within the maximum limit specified by the Act as a rule making body Statutory provisions are meant to be comparatively more static than the Rules framed under the Act. If a real co-relation is to be maintained at all times between the fee actually levied and the service rendered, for which the fee is levied, the advantage of a flexible machinery like a delegated rule making power should be obvious. Now that there is a separate fund administered by the Commissioner it should be easier for the Government to exercise its delegated power well within the legal limits. If there is a surplus of income over expenditure, the Government can and is obviously expected to revise the rates of levy, to keep as near as possible to the real quid pro quo basis for the levy of the fee. The need for such periodical revisions is implicit, when the Act specifies only the maximum and entrusts the duty of fixing the quantum of levy within that maximum to the Government, as the authority empowered by the Legislature to frame the necessary rules. It may be an onerous responsibility. But that is implicit in a greater or lesser degree in every case of lawful delegation of powers. The rule has to be intra vires the rule-making authority. Even if Section 76(1) is valid that would not by itself validate the "prescribed" rate, that is, the rate prescribed from time to time, the validity of which will have to be substantiated if it is challenged. In the very nature of things, there can be nothing static about the rates to be prescribed for the levy authorised by Section 76(1) As we pointed out the" question of reasonableness will really arise for full consideration only when we are called upon to decide the validity of the rule prescribing the actual levy under the authorisation conferred by Section 76(1). In deciding; whether Section 76(1) is intra vires the Legislature that enacted it, the primary consideration is the legislative competence. The question that would arise for consideration in deciding the validity of the prescribed rule would be whether it is intra vires the rule-making authority. The latter we have left out of account now. So it is really independent of the validity of the Rules that we have to consider whether what Section 76(1) authorises is the imposition of a fee. The third, fourth and fifth of the tests we have mentioned above are also satisfied by Section 76(1). The services rendered by the Government through the Commissioner and his subordinates are incidental to the system of regulation embodied in the several provisions of the Act. That regulation was imposed by the Legislature solely on considerations of public necessity. As the Supreme Court pointed out in the Shirur Math's Case (1954) 1 M.L.J. 596 : (1954) S.C.J. 335 (S.C.), even as denominational institutions, maths are public institutions, in the sense, that a large section of the worshipping public are vitally interested in the proper maintenance and upkeep of these religious institutions. The statutory regulation imposed by the Act, minus the provisions which have been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable against Maths and Matadhipathis, has been upheld by the Courts as constitutional and valid. Whether the quid pro quo test, the most vital basis to justify the imposition of a fee, has been satisfied by Section 76(1) is the next question. The co-relation between the fee for 63 the levy of which Section 76(1) provides and the service to be rendered in return is specifically indicated in the clause as it now stands. "It appears ex facie the (impugned) legislative provision." The co-relation exists in the purpose to serve which the Legislature levied the contribution. The further test, whether the impugned provision provides for the corelation in the extent of the levy, cannot apply to Section 76(1) as it stands. That can apply only to the contribution "prescribed" by the competent authority, the Government. Neither the specification of 5 per cent. as the maximum of levy nor the failure to specify the actual extent of the levy can invalidate Section 76(1) as a legislative provision for the imposition of the fee. Section 76(5) provides for the utilisation of the surplus in the fund built up of contributions levied under sub-sections (1) and (2). However laudable the object of the Legislature in providing for poor and needy religious institutions, and whatever be the extent of the good faith in which the Legislature enacted the provision, Section 76(5) was beyond the legislative competence granted by Entry 47 of List III. Obviously a contribution levied for the sole purpose specified in Sub-section (5) would not be a fee. There would be no quid pro quo basis at all for such an exaction. A levy to provide, even in part, for any purpose other than the strictly - relevant one, the service to be rendered by the State, would destroy the legal basis for the levy of a fee, which alone is authorised by Entry 47. The learned Advocate-General made no attempt to justify Section 76(5) as intra vires the Legislature. As he rightly pointed out, the scheme of the Act provided for either contingency, a deficit or surplus in the fund. The provision for the utilisation of the surplus for any purpose other than the payment for the service to be rendered, he conceded, was beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature. A levy, deliberately designed to provide for a surplus unreasonable in its quantum, would certainly be illegal. But then we should also realise that arithmetical precision, just balancing the income and expenditure in any given year, is impossible. As the learned Advocate-General pointed out, if there is a surplus in the fund, the benefit of that should go only to those who have to pay the prescribed fee. The rate of the fee could be reduced to maintain the just relation between the fee levied and the services rendered. We regret the necessity; but the scope of Entry 47 compels us to negative the validity of Section 76(5). That legislative provision was ultra vires the State Legislature Thus the Hon’ble Madras High Court while laying down the tests and applying the same to the instant case to decide whether the levy under Sec 76 was a “fee” came to the conclusion that it was a “fee” with the expectation that the actual levy would correlate with the charges for the services rendered and the same would be achieved through the prescribed rates under the Rule making authority of the Government. Thus it was never contemplated that a huge surplus would materialize in the fund. If there was a surplus in a particular year what is expected is that the Government through its rule making power will have to reduce the levy and the Commissioner should adjust the surplus to pay for the services rendered in the following year. Therefore what was contemplated was a dynamic variation of the levy so that principle of quid pro quo could be maintained and only under this assumption amended Sec 76 was upheld. It was also held that the surplus in the Fund cannot be used for any other purpose other than for payment of the fee for the services rendered. 64 The said section and the Rules framed under it was again challenged in another case in H.H Shri Swamiji of Shri Admar Mutt, etc Vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Dept AIR 1980 SC 1. The Madras Legislature passed an Act called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951 ("the Madras Act of 1951"), to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras Section 76(1) of the Act, as it stood originally, provided that in respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers, every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it. pay to the Government annually such contribution not exceeding 5 per centum of its income as may be prescribed. This provision and some other provisions of the Act were challenged in the Madras High Court on behalf of the Shirur Mutt and others. The challenge was upheld by the High Court and the appeal filed therefrom by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, was dismissed by this Court in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. Section 76(1) was held void by this Court on the ground that the provision relating to the payment of annual contribution contained in it was in the nature of tax and not fee and therefore it was beyond the legislative competence of the Madras State Legislature to enact the provision. The Madras Legislature amended section 76(1) of the Act so as to provide that in respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers, "and for defraying the expenses incurred on account of such services", every religious institution shall, from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prescribed. The validity of the amended section, was upheld by this Court in H. H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore. It is clear from the various facts mentioned by the respondents in their affidavit in the High Court that under the supervision and control of the Commissioner, there are as many as 324 institutions with an income of over Rs. 200/- per annum and 1796 institutions with an income of less than Rs. 200/- per annum. The latter class of smaller institutions requires and receives services from the Department as much as the former class of bigger institutions does. The amounts collected by the levy of fees on these institutions was just enough to balance the bulk of the expenditure incurred, at least during the period under review, for financing the conduct of affairs of a Department which is charged with the duty and obligation of rendering services to the institutions directly and to the public which patronises or visits them indirectly. The rules framed under the Madras Act of 1951 prescribed a fee varying from 3 to 5 per cent of the annual income of the institutions. The figures furnished by the Commissioner in the third statement dated August 10, 1967 which was filed in pursuance of the directive issued by the High Court show that the total demand made on all the religious institutions for fees during the years 1957 to 1964 amounted to Rs. 8,80,389/- while the allocable expense for the services was Rs. 7,54,160/-. It is not without significance that though the total demand made on the Mutts during the said period was in the sum of Rs. 3,64,591/-, the contribution received from the Mutts was Rs. 24,526/- only. In the absence of any acceptable evidence showing that the Department had built up large accumulations or reserves out of the fees collected from the various institutions and considering that services are required to be 65 rendered to a large class of institutions consisting of major and minor institutions, we do not think that we can positively come to the conclusion that there is no approximation or correspondence between the fees levied on the appellants and the services rendered to the class to which they belong. The second contention therefore fails Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v The Salvation Army Western India Territory AIR 1975 SC846 gave a definitive ruling that depending on the quantum of surplus a levy which is considered a “fee” initially will take the colour of “tax” if the percentage is not adjusted taking into account the quantum of the surplus. If this happens then the levy is liable to be struck down. The surplus, at the end of March, 1970 being Rs. 40 lakhs or' to be more accurate, Rs. 54 lakhs, the rate of fee at 2 per cent cannot continue, in any event after March, 1970 without taking into account the corpus of Rs. 54 lakhs and the income there from. We think that the contribution at the rate of 2 per cent on the gross income of the trusts after March 31, 1970 onwards undoubtedly assumed the character of a tax as that merely augmented the income of the Charity Organisation, If, the Organisation is allowed to go on increasing its surplus year after year out of the amount of fee collected under s. 58 of the Act, it would demonstrate that the fee levied was unjustifiably disproportionate to the service rendered. We are, therefore, of the opinion that before levying any fee or determining its rate after March, 1970. the Charity Organization has to balance its budget in the light of this judgment We also hold that after 31st March, 1970, the levy at the rate of 2 per cent of the gross income of the trust cannot be justified as a fee. This does not mean that no levy of contribution was permissible thereafter. We only say that any% levy thereafter should have correlation with the services, taking into consideration the existence of the surplus fund which was not immediately required for further expenditure by way of services including ,capital expenditure. We declare that levy of contribution at the rate of 2 per cent of the annual gross income of the trusts became levy of tax after 31st March, 1970 and was without the authority of law. Since there was a prayer in the writ petition to declare Rule 32 as ultra vires, we think that the respondent is entitled to this relief Thus it is very clear that if the Endowments Administration Fund actually registers a huge surplus year over year and if the Government fails to adjust the rate of levy through its rule making power in response to the surplus by prescribing rates below the maximum then the levy will be considered as a Tax and the section is liable to be struck down. 66
Report "Report of the Committee on Service Issues of Temple Employees"