Archakas' right to hold services upheld

KURNOOL: In a judgment that sets at rest the confusion prevailing over the hereditary rights of Archakas, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states  of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, in Swarna Gadhadhara Babu vs State of Telangana, held that the qualified members of those Archaka families which were continuing in Archakathwam service under the repealed Act, 1966, having been recognised thereunder, shall continue to have the right of Archakathwam. Thus, by virtue of the amended provisions, if entitled to the benefit, it is for them to take pleas as provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder before the proper forum as per Secti-on34(3) amended provision.

Hailing the judgment as path breaking, Chilkur Balaji Temple priest C.S. Rangarajan, who is also the chairman of Telangana Te-mples Protection Comm-ittee, said that Ramana Deekshitulu, the former chief priest of Tirumala Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple, could not be retired under any provisions whatsoever as claimed by the government. The government action in relation to Ramana Deekshitulu was “illegal, arbitrary and vindictive”, said Rangarajan.

However it may be mentioned that Ramana Deek-shitulu was retired after attaining the age of superannuation.

Writing the judgment, Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao opined, “It is clearly laid down from Section 34(3) of Act 33 of 2007 that, qualified members of Archaka families which were continuing under the repealed Act 17/66 in the Archakathwam service, having been so recognised thereunder, shall continue to have the right of Archak-athwam and it is crystal clear the abolition of hereditary Archaka rights u/sec. 34(1) of the Act is revived once they were continuing by the time of the repeal of Act 17/66 under the repealed Act by the new Act in 1987 of respectively, later on not continued from the very wording supra of the amended Section 34(3) by the Act 30 of 2007, leave it apart from the very definition of Section 2(15) of the hereditary office holder which includes Archaka, the succession to whose office devolves concerned, it is according to the Rule of succession laid down by the founder or according to usage and custom applicable to the institution or endowment or according to the law of succession for the time being in force. It is not a case of rule of succession allowed by the founder of the institution or endowment. Coming to the law of succession concerned, wh-ere Archakas herein are Hi-ndus undisputedly gover-ned by the Hindu Success-ion Act, 1956 and as per the very Section 8 of the Act r/w schedule-1 wife and daughters are the class-1 legal heirs for no sons to the rule of succession.”

Citing the above , CS Rangarajan demanded the government reinstate Ramana Deekshitulu forthwith and facilitate continuance of Archakatvam from lineal descendants.