K. Govindan Kutty vs The Malabar Devaswom Bord
2021 Latest Caselaw 2196 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                             WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)


PETITIONER:

                 K. GOVINDAN KUTTY
                 AGED 52 YEARS
                 S/O. K. SUBRAYAN EMBRANTHIRI, MELSANTHI, SRI. APATHUKATHA
                 GANAPATHI TEMPLE, PATHUKUDI, MANARKAD, RESIDING AT GAJANANAM
                 MUKKANNATHU MADHOM, NANJAPPA NAGAR, T.S. ROAD, MANNARKKAD-
                 678582.

                 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1         THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BORD
                 KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER-673001.

       2         THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                 MALABAR DEVASWOMBOARD, PALAKKAD-678001.

       3         SRI. VELAYUDHAN MUTHALI
                 HEREDITARY MANAGING TRUSTREE, SREE APATHUKATHA GANAPATHI
                 TEMPLE, PATHUKUDI, MANNARKAD-678582.

                 BY   SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN,SC
                 BY   ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANANPALAKKAD
                 BY   ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
                 BY   SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC
                 BY   SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC
                 BY   SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC
                 BY   ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)

                                     2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he was working as a "Santhi" of

Apathukatha Ganapathi Temple, Mannarkad, at the time when

this writ petition was filed in the year 2012, though he

resigned subsequently; and prays that the respondents be

directed to revise his scale of pay as per Ext.P1 order and to

further grant the difference in the pay until he so resigned.

2. The petitioner says that he has preferred Ext.P3

representation before the 2nd respondent - Assistant

Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board for the afore

purpose, but alleges that same has not been yet disposed of.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the 2nd respondent be

directed to dispose of Ext.P3, granting him the revised scale of

pay until he resigned from service.

3. In response to the afore submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.T.A.Rajan,

the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom

Board, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, submitted that a counter

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent,

wherein, the following have been stated: WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)

"2. Sree Apathukatha Ganapathy Temple, Alanellur Village, Mannarkad Taluk, Palakkad District is a religious institution coming under the purview of H.R & C.E Act. Sri.K.Govindankutty is the Santhi of the above temple. It is not correct that he is working there for the last 32 years. At the time of his appointment, the minimum age for appointment is 25, as per rule 100 (2)(y) settled under the H. R & C.E. Act. If he is appointed at the age of 25 he might have attained the age 58 years. The temple is managed by the Trustee Board then, and now there is an Executive Officer to look after the affairs. They will do and doing whatever needed for the temple development.

3. As per 100(2), (p) & (x)(ii), the temple were graded to 1 to 5 for appointing Executive Officers. And when the scale of pay of the temple employees in Malabar area was fixed by the Government of Kerala in pursuance of a Court order the temples were graded to "special grade" and 'A' to 'D' for administrative facility to calculate the work load at the time of fixing pay. Sree Apathukatha Ganapathy temple is listed as 'D' grade on the basis of income and work load of employees.

4. In the course of fixing the pay to the employees in Malabar area, the pay of the petitioner is also fixed. The pay of the petitioner was fixed as per Order No. in A6/0903001/D dt. 17.5.2010. The pay fixed to Rs.4730/- in the scale Rs.4400-6080 after awarding the time bounded grade. The averments of the petitioner about fixation of pay is incorrect.

5. The Executive Officer of Sri.Apathukatha Ganapathy Temple has submitted a schedule of vazhivadu (offering) to the IInd respondent as per Section 50 of the H.R & C. E.Act. It is pending disposal for want of approval of area committee. Before submitting the WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)

schedule the Executive Officer has consulted the matter with employees and fixed the rate and share to the employees. The employees have consented this. In anticipation of order the temple authorities have implemented the schedule and the share as said in it is disbursing to the petitioner. "

4. Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, submitted that, therefore,

the petitioner cannot have any further grievance in this writ

petition, particularly because his scale of pay has been fixed

taking the Temple in question to be "D grade" and the share

of 'Vazhipadu' has also been granted to him on the basis of the

consent of all parties. He, therefore, prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

5. In reply, however, Sri.T.A.Rajan, submitted that even

though the counter affidavit says that the Temple in question

is described as "D grade", the notification dated 15.02.1994,

would show that this Temple is included as 'B grade' and that

it is listed therein as Serial No.755. He, therefore, prayed that

the 2nd respondent be directed to reconsider the claim of his

client taking note of this singular aspect.

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

doubt that now there is a factual dispute as to the grading of WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)

this Temple; with the Malabar Devaswom Board maintaining

that it is 'D' while the petitioner maintaining that it is 'B'.

Obviously, thus this is not an issue that can be resolved by this

Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, since it will require assessment of various factual

circumstances and factors. I am, therefore, of the view that the

2nd respondent must reconsider the matter, adverting to Ext.P3

representation of the petitioner at the earliest.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 representation of

the petitioner, either if it is pending before him or from the

files of this case, and to dispose of the same after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - either physically

or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible

but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, if, after the afore exercise, the Temple in

question is found to be "B Grade" as asserted by the

petitioner, the resultant benefits eligible to the petitioner will WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)

be disbursed to him without any avoidable delay, but not later

than three months from the date on which the 2 nd respondent

takes a decision in terms of the directions herein.

SD/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.9111 OF 2012(L)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.116/2009/RD DATED

28/02/2009 OF THE REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/01/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF SHARE OF THE VAZHIPADU FROM 2012 FEBRUARY ONWARDS.

EXHIBIT R3(B) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE VOUCHERS ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF SALARY FROM 2012 JANUARY.