P.Thrivikraman vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5012 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)


PETITIONER:

                 P.THRIVIKRAMAN
                 AGED 60 YEARS
                 S/O. LATE SANKARAN EMBRANDIRI, PALAKKULAM ILLOM, SREE
                 NANDANAM, KOTTAYI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678572.

                 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
                 (DEVASWOM), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

       2         THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM
                 P O, KOZHIKODE - 673006.

       3         THE COMMISSIONER
                 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM P O,
                 KOZHIKODE - 673006.

       4         THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD, KENATHUPARAMBU,
                 KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678013.

       5         THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                 SREE KANDATHARKAVU - PANARKAVU, (SREE OLAPPAMANNA MANA GROUP
                 DEVASWOM), PALLIKURUP P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678593.

       6         THE ADMINISTRATOR
                 OLAPPAMANNA MANA DEVASWOM, H.O. PALLIKURUP, PALAKKAD, PIN -
                 678593.

                 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC
                 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE(GP)

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he has been working as a 'Santhi'

(Priest) in Sree Kandatharkavu - Panarkavu Temples at Palakkad

and has approached this Court seeking that the competent

Authority of the Malabar Devaswom Board - under whose

supervisory jurisdiction the Temples are administered, as per

the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowment Act, 1951 - be directed to appoint a 'Melsanthi' and

a 'Keezhsanthi' to it; and to consequently appoint him to one of

the said posts, preferably to the post of "Melsanthi".

2. The petitioner says that he has been working as a

solitory Santhi in the Temples for the last more than eleven

years from 01.03.2009, and therefore, that he is entitled to be

reckoned either as a 'Keezhsanthi' or 'Melsanthi' with effect

from that date, since the workload in the Temples certainly

justifies the said posts. The petitioner says that, as is evident

from the admitted records, the Temples are classified as "B

Grade" and therefore, that going by Ext.P4 order of the

Government, the Temples are entitled to both the posts of

'Melsanthi' and 'Keezhsanthi', though conceding that the posts WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

of 'Santhi' and 'Keezhsanthi' have been classified as one

category therein.

3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the 6 th

respondent, who is the Trustee/Administrator of Olappamanna

Mana Devaswom, be directed to appoint him to the post of

'Melsanthi' in the Temple in question with retrospective effect

from 01.03.2009 and to disburse the salary on such scale

without any further delay.

4. As an alternative submission, the petitioner also

prays that the 3rd respondent - Commissioner of Malabar

Devaswom Board, be directed to take a decision on his request

for creating the posts of 'Melsanthi' and 'Keezhsanthi' in the

Temples, after hearing him.

5. I have heard Sri.E.Narayanan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board,

submitted that, as is luculent from Ext.P14 proceedings of the

Commissioner of the Devaswom Board, the Temples are

categorized only as 'B Grade' and therefore, that the petitioner WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

will have to move the Trustee of the Temple for change or

modification of its approved Schedule of Establishment", which

he will have to then consider and take a decision on depending

upon the workload involved in the Temples. He further

submitted that the petitioner has already been granted two

Grade promotions, as had been requested by him, in spite of this

and therefore, that he cannot have any grievance with respect to

the same. Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan, therefore, prayed that this

writ petition be dismissed.

7. Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel appearing for the 5 th

respondent - Executive Officer of the Temple, submitted that his

client has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, he has explained the

workload of the temple and that it is not sufficient to warrant

creation of posts of either 'Melsanthi' or 'Keezhsanthi'. He says

that, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is untenable and

prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

8. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that as per Ex.P4, a 'B Grade' Temple is entitled -

depending upon its workload to be sanctioned the posts of

'Melsanthi' as well as 'Keezhsanthi', though the posts of WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

'Keezhsanthi' and 'Santhi' are in one category.

9. The question whether the workload is sufficient to

warrant creation of these posts and whether such a request has

to be made to the Devaswom Board is, at the first instance to be

taken by the Trustee of the Temple and whose decision will,

thereafter, require concurrence of the Area Committee, if it is a

Temple coming under its jurisdiction or by the Commissioner of

the Devaswom Board, if it is otherwise.

10. Obviously, therefore, this Court will not be justified in

making any affirmative declaration either in favour of the

petitioner or against him, when the statutory competence to

take a decision at the first instance is vested with the Trustee,

going by the provisions of the applicable Act and Regulations.

For the afore reasons, I order this writ petition and leave

liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trustee of the Temple

with an appropriate representation; and if this is done within a

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, same shall be considered by the said Trustee, after

affording him, as well as the Executive Officer, an opportunity of

being heard, thus leading to an apposite order thereon, as WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of the representation by him.

It is needless to say that if the Trustee, after the afore

exercise, finds that a post is required to be created, then he

shall forward the order to the Area Committee or to the

Commissioner, as the case may be, which shall then be

considered by the said Authority without any avoidable delay

thereafter.

I also record the submission of Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan,

that the petitioner has already been granted the Grade

Promotions and therefore, if there is any further grievance left

for him on that account - including that he has not been paid

salary - leave him liberty to approach the Commissioner for

such purpose, which shall then be decided by the said Authority

within a period of one month from the date on which the

petitioner moves him for such purpose.

SD/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED

06.03.2002 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF OLAPPAMANNA MANA DEVASWOM,

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OALAPPAMANNA DEVASWOM TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.225/04/RD DATED 29.06.2004.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.116/09/RD DATED 28.02.2009.

EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTO OF THE NOTICE BOARD SHOWING THE LIST OF VARIOUS VAZHIPADUS AND THE COST OF THE RESPECTIVE VAZHIPADUS.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PRINTED BY THE DEVASWOM IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRATHISHTADHINAM OF THE TEMPLE,

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH ANAYOOTTU PERFORMED DURING THE RAMAYANA MONTH.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 24766/18 ON THE FILE OF THE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION NO.12/18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD IN RP 12/18.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THE TRUSTEE IN RP 12/18. WP(C).No.18250 OF 2020(E)

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.02.2020 IN RP 12/18 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 21.07.2020 GIVEN TO EXT.P5 UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 13.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 06.08.2020 GIVEN TO EXT P17 UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.H.4.1665/09/MDB DATED 18.03.2009.

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO. 5718/2012/RD DATED 06.10.2012.