JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal arises from the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9641 and 12908 of 2021. 2. The State has filed the appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the settled principle of law on equal pay for equal work is not followed. It is the specific case of the State that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others. 3. It is also the case of the state that the Commissioner of Endowments is empowered under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 to vest the power to pass any orders to ensure that the Math property is administered properly and the income is spent for the purpose for which the Math was found. 4. The State has introduced certain memos vide No. 36021/32/Endowments-1 (2)/2018-1, dated 04.07.2018 and Memo No. 36021/32/Endowments-1 (2)/2018, dated 05.12.2018. The Special Commissioner and Member Secretary of D.P Endowments Department, addressed a memo vide Rc. No. DP1/25031/3/2020, dated 19.04.2021 to the Manager of the Respondent/writ petitioner. 5. The Commissioner basing on the above referred memos intended to regulate the payments to the contract employees of the Math and directed the Manager of the respondent to implement the instructions relating to extending minimum time scale in respect of contract/casual employees. 6. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said proceedings the respondent filed the Writ Petition No. 9641 of 2021 and one of the employee of Math filed the Writ Petition No. 12908 of 2021 seeking a declaration of the action of the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the manager of the respondent herein in not extending the minimum time scale of pay attached to the Last Grade Service and seeking implementation of the directions of the Special Commissioner issued vide the proceedings referred above. 7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Math and held that the memos dated 04.07.2018, 05.12.2018 and 19.04.2021 are inapplicable to the petitioner/Math and consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the employee of the Math. 8. 7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Math and held that the memos dated 04.07.2018, 05.12.2018 and 19.04.2021 are inapplicable to the petitioner/Math and consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the employee of the Math. 8. The learned Single Judge has considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others and held that the ratio laid down therein is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the various provisions of the Endowments Act and held that the State could not have exercised its unfound right of regulating the affairs of Math. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that the attempt of the state is only to ensure payment of equal work for equal pay and ensure compliance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others is scrupulously followed. 10. The learned Government Pleader also states that the powers of the Commissioner to issue appropriate orders under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 cannot be misinterpreted by the Math. It is also submitted that the memos issued by the Government were with a specific purpose of ensuring the recommendations made by the Expert Committees for implementation of equal pay for equal work. 11. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that implementation of the principle of equal pay for equal work by the respondent/Math is in tune with the Labour Legislations and that it is the duty of the State to ensure such compliance by all the temples and religious institutions. It is also contended that the powers of the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act, cannot be questioned as long as the statute provides such powers. 12. Sri. C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Math submits that the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act, does not have un-bridged powers to issue memos and try to regulate the affairs of the Math. 13. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the memo dated 04.07.2018 would have to essentially refer to temple employees for extension of time scale of pay. 13. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the memo dated 04.07.2018 would have to essentially refer to temple employees for extension of time scale of pay. Attention of the Court is also drawn the subject referred to in the said memo, whereby, a reference to interim orders granted by this Court and the contempt cases pending. Similarly, the directions are for the Executive Officers of the various temples calling upon them to extend minimum time scale of pay to N.M.Rs/Contract Employees, payable to corresponding post of regular employees in the Last Grade Service of the employees working in the said institution/temple. The circular dated 24.09.2018 also indicates that the circular is issued for maintaining a uniform pay structure for the NMR/Contract employees of the temple. The said circular is marked to all the Executive Officers of temples in the State. The memo dated 05.12.2018 is also issued for the purpose of N.M.Rs/contract employees in various cadres with consolidated pay/daily wages. 14. The learned Senior Counsel submits that placing reliance on such memos issuance of the proceedings DP1/25031/3/2020, dated 19.04.2021 addressed to the Manager of the Respondent/Math is not only illegal, but also irrational and also amounts to exceeding the powers conferred to the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. 15. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent/Math vide its letter dated 19.03.2020 addressed a detailed letter to the Commissioner, Endowments. The respondent/Math has brought to notice of the Commissioner that the circulars issued by the State calling upon the respondent/Math to implement payment of minimum time scale of pay for the N.M.Rs/Contract/Daily wage workers of the Math would not be applicable for the Math. Unmindful of the said explanation the impugned circular dated 19.04.2021 is issued without even addressing the explanation of the respondent/Math dated 19.03.2020 and as to how the State could have overcome the objections raised by the math through their letter. 16. Unmindful of the said explanation the impugned circular dated 19.04.2021 is issued without even addressing the explanation of the respondent/Math dated 19.03.2020 and as to how the State could have overcome the objections raised by the math through their letter. 16. The distinction between a Math and a Temple as defined under the provisions of the Hindu Religious Establishments Act from time to time is tabulated as under: 1951 Act Sec. 6(10): “Math” means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached there to presided over by a person whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious institution or rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over such a body, and includes places of religious worship or instruction with are appurtenant to the institution. Sec. 6(17): “Temple” means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religiouship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. 1959 Act Sec. 6(13): “Math” means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached there to and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in accordance with direction of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage and: (i) whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service, or (ii) whose exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and include places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to institution. Sec.6(20): “Temple” means a place, by whatever designation known, use as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as a right by, the Hindu community, or of any section thereof as a place of religious worship. Sec.6(20): “Temple” means a place, by whatever designation known, use as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as a right by, the Hindu community, or of any section thereof as a place of religious worship. 1966 Act Sec.2(17): “Math” means a Hindu religious institution presided over by a person, whose principle duty is to engage himself in the teaching and propagation of Hindu religious and philosophy or the teachings and philosophy of the denomination, sector sampradaya to which the Math belongs and in imparting religious institution and training and rendering spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and includes place or places of religious worship, instruction or training which are appurtenant to institution. Sec.2(26): “Temple” means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes sub-shrines utsava Mantapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and land. 1987 Act Sec. 2(17): as above Sec.2(27): “Temple” means place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and includes subshrines, utsava mandapas, tanks and other necessary appurtenant structures and land. Explanation: A place of worship where the public or a section thereof have unrestricted access or declared as a private place of worship by court or other authority but notwithstanding any such declaration, public or a section thereof has unrestricted access to such place and includes a temple which is maintained within the residential premises, offerings or gifts are received by the person managing the temple from the public or section thereof at the time of worship or other religious function shall be deemed to be a temple. 17. Section 8 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 reads as under: Section 8. 17. Section 8 of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act 1987 reads as under: Section 8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endowments in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of section 6. (3) The powers and functions of the Additional Commissioner shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (4) The Commissioner may delegate to a Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act including the powers and functions of an Assistant Commissioner which may be exercised or performed by the Commissioner under sub-section (5) but not including the power and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment or any class or group of institutions or endowments in the State, subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. (5) The Commissioner may delegate to an Assistant Commissioner any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to the Commissioner by or under this Act except the powers and functions of the Commissioner under sub-section (1), sections 6, 15, 49, 51, 66, 90, 92 and 132 in respect of any institution or endowment in the subdivision in charge of the Assistant Commissioner subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by general or special order, lay down and subject also to such limitations and conditions if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. (6) Notwithstanding anything in sections 10 and 11, the Commissioner may, by order in writing, declare that the exercise and performance of all or any of the powers or functions by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be subject to such exceptions, limitations and conditions as may be specified in the order and he may himself exercise any power or perform the functions so excepted. 18. The ambit and scope of a Math has undergone considerable transformation when compared from the 1927 Act to the 1987 Act. The Math is distinct from the Temple. A Math has a distinct purpose and would not extend to performing the role of a Temple. Similarly, a Temple would not perform the role of a Math. The Maths are theological centers for learning. The followers of the Spiritual Head of the Math would essentially visit the Math with utmost faith and inspired by the preaching of the Spiritual Head. The faith reposed by the disciple of the Math and its activities and the right of the disciple to follow the Math and its activities is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 19. A careful reading of Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987 shall imply that the commissioner shall have general superintendence over the charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions. The power conferred under Section 8 of the act cannot be expanded beyond the purpose and intent of the act. 20. Section 48 of the act exempts application of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 & 28 to Math or specific endowment attached thereto. Section 57 relates to the Budget of Charitable or religious institution or endowment. The power conferred under Section 8 of the act cannot be expanded beyond the purpose and intent of the act. 20. Section 48 of the act exempts application of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 & 28 to Math or specific endowment attached thereto. Section 57 relates to the Budget of Charitable or religious institution or endowment. The said provision of law enables the Commissioner to have general superintendence over the manner in which the budget of the religious institution is planned. 21. In the matter of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Math, AIR 1954 SC 282 held that the powers of commissioner to pass orders only for the purpose specified in the section and not for interference with the rights of the mahant as are sanctioned by usage or for lowering his position as the spiritual head of the institution. 22. In the matter of Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu and Others vs. State of A.P. and Another, (1996) 8 SCC 705 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the Act is a permissible statutory intervention under Articles 25(2)(a) and 26(b) and (d) of the Constitution. The provision of Section 50 requires the Mathadhipathi to maintain accounts in the manner specified and prescribed therein. 23. In the matter of Ahobila Math Parampara Adheena vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2022 (6) ALT 628 . This Court has held that the state has no authority to interfere with the affairs of Sri Ahobila Math Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam. The State appointed an Executive Officer to the Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam which is appurtenant to the Math. This court struck down the attempt of the state and restrained the Executive Officer from interfering with the affairs of the state. 24. A perusal of the proceedings of the commissioner dated 10.04.2018 would indicate that the same are intended for extension of time scale of pay for the Temple Employees appointed as Contract/NMR with consolidated pay. The said proceedings refer to the Letter dated 08.03.2018 of the Executive officer of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada. This Court in W.P. No. 6786 of 2010 and C.C. No. 907 of 2014 in its common order dated 13.11.2014 issued directions to the Executive Officer to regularize the services of the employees subject to their eligibility. The said proceedings refer to the Letter dated 08.03.2018 of the Executive officer of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada. This Court in W.P. No. 6786 of 2010 and C.C. No. 907 of 2014 in its common order dated 13.11.2014 issued directions to the Executive Officer to regularize the services of the employees subject to their eligibility. About 26 writ petitions were filed by the Contract/NMR workers during 2017 and 2018 before High Court seeking extension of time scale of pay in the last grade services. In all the cases the interim orders have been granted directing respondents for extending minimum time scale of pay by relaying on the principle of law equal pay for equal work. The proceedings left it open to the executive authorities to examine the case of each of such employee for extension of time scale of pay as against the sanctioned cadre strength. It also indicated that the executive authorities ought to take into consideration such other service conditions of the said employee. 25. The Government vide Proceedings dated 02.05.2018 formed a four member committee to study in depth and suggest for extension of minimum time scale of pay, applicable to the last grade services to the Contractual/NMRs working in Religious & Charitable Institutions/Temples of endowments Department and submit a report. 26. The committee in its report dated 04.06.2018 discussed in detail all the writ petitions filed in the High Court, the interim orders passed in those writ petitions. 8 Major Temples of the state and 5 temples registered under Sec 6(a) of the Act 30/87 were involved in the writ petitions. The law laid down in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others was also considered by the committee. Proceedings of the Executive Officers of various temples were also considered. The committee also considered the issue of cadre strength and permissions obtained from time to time to continue the NMRs/Contract employees in various temples and thereafter submitted the report. The said report was forwarded to all concerned Temples. Memo dated 04.07.2018, proceedings dated 20.07.2018 also related to temples and implementation of the report of the committee. The circular dated 27.08.2019 was forwarded to the respondent Math as well, calling upon to implement the Memo No 36021/32/Endowments-I(2)/2018-1, Dated 04.07.2018 and office instructions dated 05.12.2018. 27. The said report was forwarded to all concerned Temples. Memo dated 04.07.2018, proceedings dated 20.07.2018 also related to temples and implementation of the report of the committee. The circular dated 27.08.2019 was forwarded to the respondent Math as well, calling upon to implement the Memo No 36021/32/Endowments-I(2)/2018-1, Dated 04.07.2018 and office instructions dated 05.12.2018. 27. The respondent Math addressed a detailed letter dated 19.03.2010 explaining the inapplicability of the various proceedings/Circulars/Memos discussed above to the Math. Unmindful of the explanation submitted by the Math, the Proceedings dated 19.04.2021 impugned in the Writ Petition were issued. 28. Evidently all the Proceedings/Circulars/Memos discussed supra are issued for the purpose of extension of minimum time scale of pay for the NMRs/Contract employees of various temples. There is no discussion on the applicability of the various Proceedings/ Circulars/Memos to the Math. However the impugned proceedings dated 19.04.2021 were issued by the Special Commissioner & Member Secretary D.P., Endowments Department. 29. The law laid down in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 dealt with the issue of temporary employees who were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. The issue there dealt with temporary employees engaged by the State. The Appellants have failed to appreciate the nuances and exceptions of the law laid down in Jagjit Singh and Others (supra). In fact, the Respondents-Muth has elucidated the same by their detailed representation/reply which has not evoked even a consideration till today. Despite the Muth making out a case by its detailed presentation, reminder is issued without addressing any of the grounds/issues raised by the Muth. The learned Single Judge has rightly concluded against the Authorities and this Bench has also no hesitation in holding that the proceedings impugned before the learned Single Judge are vitiated by non-application of mind and on that count also, the impugned proceedings were liable to be interfered with. 30. The attempt of the state to extend payment of minimum time scale of pay to the NMR/Contract employees of the Math through issuance of memo of the Special Commissioner and Member Secretary of D.P Endowments Department, Rc. No. DP1/25031/3/2020, dated 19.04.2021 without addressing the objections raised by the respondent vide their letter dated 19.03.2020 is held as irrational and illogical. The said proceedings are evidently passed without application of mind. 31. No. DP1/25031/3/2020, dated 19.04.2021 without addressing the objections raised by the respondent vide their letter dated 19.03.2020 is held as irrational and illogical. The said proceedings are evidently passed without application of mind. 31. With these observations the Writ Appeal is dismissed, without costs. 32. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.