Travancore Devaswom Board vs K.M.Krishnakumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 22827 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM


                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
                              &
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

                      WA NO. 305 OF 2021

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.33770/2016 OF THE HIGH COURT
                          OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):

    1     TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 005.
          THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
    2
          NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 005.
          BY ADV SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C) & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:

    1     K.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 67 YEARS,
          S/O.PARAMEWARASARMA, RESIDING AT KEEZHCHERCKAL
          ILLAM KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA-689 582.
    2     MANU KRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
          S/O.K.K.KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT KEEZHCHERCKAL
          ILLAM KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA-689 582.
    3     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
          THIRUVALLA DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLA-689 101.
    4     THE MANAGER, SUB GROUP OFFICER,
          KAVIYOOR, HANUMAN SWAMI TEMPLE, KAVIYOOR,
          THIRUVALLA-689 582.
          ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. FOR R1 & R2
          SRI.VIVEK A.V., SRI.GODWIN JOSEPH, SRI.SANKAR
          INDUCHOODAN, SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN


      THIS  WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD  ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No. 305 of 2021

                                    ..2..




      ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
 ============================================
                W.A. No. 305 of 2021
         [arising out of the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2019 in
                           WP(C) No. 33770/2016]
=============================================
        Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The contesting respondent 1 & 2 in this Writ Appeal/writ

petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil)

No.33770/2016 before this Court for prayers in the matter of

quashment of impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 31.8.2016 issued by

the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, to the limited

extent it has been ordered that approval of appointment was

denied in respect of the writ petitioners from the original date of

their appointments, and for mandamus to direct the Travancore

Devaswom Board authorities concerned to approve the

appointments denied of the writ petitioners with effect from the

date of eligibility and to grant them all consequential benefits

including salary, scale of pay, bonus, etc. W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..3..

2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has

rendered the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2019 finally

disposing of the above WP(C) with the direction to the

respondents in the WP(C)/writ appellants herein to pass orders

and grant appropriate scale of pay to the writ petitioners with

effect from the dates they have joined duty as "Karanma Kaisthani

Lavanam" [കകാരകാണ്മ കകസകാനനി ലകാവണണ] and arrears of pay due to

them shall be calculated and disbursed to them within 3 months.

3. Now, being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment

rendered by the learned Single Judge on 10.10.2019 disposing the

above WP(C) with the abovesaid directions, the respondents in

the WP(C) Travancore Devaswom Board officials concerned have

now preferred the instant intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the

Kerala High Courts Act, 1958.

4. Heard Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for

the Travancore Devaswom Board appearing for the appellants in

the W.A./respondents in the WP(C) and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the W.A./writ

petitioners.

W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..4..

5. Reference to the factual details in this case will be

apposite. By Ext.P-2 letter dated 14.3.2005, the Devaswom

Manager concerned has intimated the Karanavar/Moopan

of the writ petitioners' family, seeking his nomination against

the vacancy that has occurred on the retirement of one

Sri.Venugopala Sharma, in the post/position as "Karanma

Kaisthani Lavanam" ["കകാരകാണ്മ കകസകാനനി ലകാവണണ"] of Kaviyoor

Devaswom. Thereupon, the Village Officer, Kaviyoor, has made

due enquiry and has submitted Ext.P-3 report dated

3.6.2005 stating that he has made enquiries in regard to the

Karanavar of the family and has reported that

Sri.K.P.Hareeshwarakumar, is the person competent to nominate

the next person to the abovesaid position of Kaviyoor Devaswom.

Consequently, the abovesaid Hareeshwarakumar has given

Ext.P-4 letter dated 14.6.2005 intimating the Devaswom authority

concerned about his willingness to nominate the first writ

petitioner Sri.K.M.Krishnakumar, against the abovesaid

post/position vacated by Sri.Venugopala Sharma. Ext.P-5 is

the consent dated 14.6.2005 submitted in that regard. It is also W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..5..

stated that the Tahsildar's certificate was also obtained in proof of

entitlement of Hareeshwarakumar to make the nomination.

Thereafter, the first writ petitioner had submitted all relevant

records and has taken charge immediately, consequent to the

retirement of Sri.Venugopala Sharma from abovesaid position in

the Kaviyoor Devaswom. The complaint of the first writ petitioner

is that, he was not granted minimum pay and allowances and was

being paid only allowances applicable to temporary employees.

Aggrieved by this, the first writ petitioner had submitted Ext.P-6

representation dated 28.4.2006 before the Assistant

Commissioner of Devaswom. The specific case of the writ

petitioners is to the effect that the first writ petitioner had worked

in the position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" in Kaviyoor

Devaswom, for the period from 30.6.2005 to 1.11.2013.

Thereafter, the second writ petitioner had taken charge in the

abovesaid position from 2.11.2013 and that even now he is

presently continuing on daily wages. The nomination of the

second writ petitioner was also duly submitted in the prescribed

stamp paper along with all records. Further that, Ext.P-7 is the W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..6..

affidavit dated 2.11.2013 was submitted. The Village Officer has

also submitted certificate as per Ext.P-8 dated 1.11.2013 in

support of the claim of the second writ petitioner stating inter alia

therein that Sri.K.Parameswaran Moosath, is the Moopan of the

family and that said certificate is issued for the purpose of the

claim in relation to the "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of

Kaviyoor Devaswom. Thereupon, the second writ petitioner has

also submitted Ext.P-9 request/representation dated 2.11.2013

before the Commissioner of Devaswom Board praying that his

appointment in abovesaid position may be approved. The

Commissioner of Devaswom Board has issued Ext.P-10 letter

dated 24.4.2014 directing the Assistant Commissioner of

Devaswom Board to produce relevant records. That, in pursuance

thereof, another set of records were also produced before the

respondents in the WP(C). That, Ext.P-11 is the revised

affidavit dated 19.2.2015 submitted from the present

Moopan/Karanavar. Nomination letter, certification from the

Village Officer, SSLC certificate etc in relation to the appointment

of the second writ petitioner to the abovesaid post/position as W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..7..

"Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor Devaswom. The

complaint of the writ petitioners is that in spite of consistent

compliance of various requirements, both in the case of

appointment of first writ petitioner as well as the appointment of

the second writ petitioner to the abovesaid post/position, timely

steps for granting approval from the competent authority of the

Devaswom Board was not made and both the writ petitioners

were given only the allowances for temporary employees, and not

the allowances in the pay scale prescribed for abovesaid

post/position. It is their case that the second writ petitioner has

been paid only Rs.250/- per day as daily wages and that he is

entitled to get salary in the pay scale of Rs.7000-200-800-250-

8500 which is the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3600-90-4300

which was in vogue up to 1.7.2009. That, the writ petitioners are

also entitled for bonus at the rate of Rs.2400/-, which was also

not been paid. That, bonus is regulated by Ext.P-12 guidelines

dated 22.8.2015.

6. Since, consistently, no action was forthcoming from

the Devaswom Board authorities concerned, the writ petitioners W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..8..

were constrained to approach this Court by filing

WP(C).No.32185/2015, in which this Court rendered judgment

in that WP(C) directing the competent authority of the

Devaswom Board to consider the representation produced therein

as Exts.P-5 & P-8, and take a decision without any further

delay. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Devaswom Board has

issued impugned Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 31.8.2016 granting

approval only for the appointment of the second writ petitioner

Sri.Manu Krishnan, in respect of abovesaid position as

"Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor Devaswom.

The stand of the Devaswom Board authorities is that the benefit

of Ext.P-1 will have only prospective effect from the date of

its issuance, viz 31.8.2016, and that the second writ petitioner

is entitled for pay and allowances only with effect from the date

of issuance of Ext.P-1, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that

the writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the

instant writ petition WP(C) No.33770/2016 with the

aforementioned prayers.

7. As indicated hereinabove, the learned Single Judge, W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..9..

after hearing both sides, has held that the stand taken by the

Devaswom Board authorities in the impugned proceedings is

legally wrong and untenable, and that the "Karanma Kaisthani

Lavanam" is a right available to a family and since, the the

writ petitioners have completed all formalities and had obtained

all necessary reports showing the title of Moopan of the family

to make nomination, as well as that it is Moopan/Karanavar of the

family who has appointed initially the first writ petitioner and

subsequently, the second writ petitioner for the abovesaid

periods in question. The learned Single Judge has directed that

the respondents in the WP(C) shall pass orders granting

appropriate scale of pay to the writ petitioners with effect from

the dates they have joined duty as "Karanma Kaisthani

Lavanam" and arrears of pay shall be rebutted and disbursed to

them within 3 months, etc.

8. It may be profitable to refer to the main contents in

the counter affidavit dated 10.6.2019 filed by the 1st respondent in

the above WP(C) from para 4 onwards thereof, which read as

follows [See pages 41 & 42 of the paper book of this Writ Appeal]: W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..10..

"4. It is not clear from the writ petition what the petitioners intend from the claim "from the date of entitlement". Sri.Venugopala Sharma who was karanma Kaisthani rerited on 30.06.2005. KP Hareeshwarakumar, senior most member of the family who was competent to nominate any member of the family nominated K.N Krishnakumar as Kaisthani in Kaviyoor Devaswom. On the basis of the nomination final decision has to be taken by the Devaswom Board. But as a temporary arrangement KN Krishnakumar was appointed on daily wages. When the 1 st petitioner failed to attend duty 2nd petitioner Manukrishnan was appointed on daily wages from 02.11.2013 onwards. He was nominated by Ext P7 by then karnavar K Parameswaran Moosath. Accepting the nomination 2nd petitioner was appointed as Kaisthani as per Ext P1 dated 31.08.16. In the same proceedings PS Gireeshkumar was also appointed as Kazhakam.

5. In the writ petition the petitioners claim salary and other emoluments as given to other karanma employees. In para 11 it is stated that the 2nd petitioner is paid only a sum of Rs.250 per day as wages and he claims salary in the scale of pay of Rs.7000-200- 800-250-8500. The petitioners are also claiming bonus at the rate of Rs2400 based on Ext P12. It is submitted that the petitioners did not get any right to be appointed as and when his predecessor retires. The karanma right is vested with the family which will be executed by the senior most member of the family. As per the records produced KP Hareeswarakumar was the seniormost member in 2005. But as per Ext P7 dated 02.11.13, K Parameswaran Moosath, then seniormost member nominated the 2nd petitioner and he was appointed. The petitioners are entitled for scale of pay, bonus etc only after getting permanent appointment.

6. The petitioners could not claim appointment as a matter of right. It is clear from Ext P1 that Manukrishnan was appointed with effect from 31.08.2016, so that he can claim salary only with effect from the date of Ext P1 proceedings. So the date of eligibility for the pay scale comes only from the date of appointment on regular basis. 2nd petitioner was appointed on regular basis only on 31.08.2016: In the case of 1 st petitioner he was not appointed as karanma Kaisthani, but he worked only a short period on daily wages.

7. Hence it is submitted that petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and therefore it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost."

9. The main contention urged by Sri.C.K.Pavithran,

learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..11..

appearing for the appellants in the W.A. is to the effect that the

benefit of pay and allowances will be payable to the second

writ petitioner only from the date of issuance of Ext.P-1 order

dated 31.8.2016. The case set up in the counter affidavit dated

10.6.2019 filed by the respondents in the WP(C) is as follows:

It is admitted therein that the previous incumbent in the position of

"Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" one Sri. Venugopala Sharma,

had retired from service on 30.6.2005 and that one

Sri.Hareeshwarakumar, who was the senior most member of the

family was competent to nominate any member of the family, and

he had duly nominated the first writ petitioner

Sri.K.M.Krishnakumar, as "Kaisthani" in Kaviyoor Devaswom.

On the basis of said nomination, the final decision has to be taken

by the Devaswom Board and that it is only as a temporary

arrangement that the first writ petitioner was appointed on daily

wages, and that later, when he failed to attend duty, the second

writ petitioner Sri.Manu Krishnan was appointed on daily wages

on 2.11.2013 onwards, and that the second writ petitioner was

nominated by Ext.P-7 by the then Karanavar Sri.K.Parameswaran W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..12..

Moosath, and accepting said nomination, the second writ

petitioner was appointed as "Kaisthani" per Ext.P-1 dated

31.8.2016.

10. The sheet anchor of the case set up by the respondents

in the WP(C) in their counter affidavit is that the writ petitioners

will not get any right to be appointed as and when the predecessor

retires and the "Karanma" right is vested with the family which is

executed by the senior most member of the family, and that as per

records produced, one Sri.Hareeshwarakumar, was the senior

most member of the family in 2005, and that later, as per Ext.P-7

letter dated 2.11.2013, the then senior most member

Sri.K.Parameswaran Moosath, had duly nominated the second

writ petitioner and he was appointed, and that the writ petitioners

were entitled to scale of pay, bonus, etc only after getting

permanent appointment. It is again reiterated that the writ

petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, and

that they can claim eligibility for securing salary only from the

date of issuance of Ext.P-1 proceedings, and that the date of

eligibility of pay scale comes only from the date of appointment on W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..13..

regular basis, and that the second writ petitioner was appointed

only on regular basis by Ext.P-1 dated 31.8.2016, etc.

11. The abovesaid pleas are opposed by Sri.C.K.Pavithran,

learned Standing Counsel. There is no necessity and the

contentions raised by him in the WP(C) have been reiterated

herein also.

12. The writ petitioners have also placed reliance on the

documents produced as Exts.P-13 & P-14 in the reply affidavit

dated 6.8.2019 filed by them in the WP(C).

13. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision in

Vishnu Narayanan Namboodiri v. Travancore

Devaswom Board [2001 KHC 819 = 2001 (3) KLT 888 =

ILR 2000 (2) Ker 270] has noted in para 5 thereof that the

judgment of this Court dated 8.8.1997 in O.P. No. 2916/1995

wherein there is a specific direction therein to the Travancore

Devaswom Board to consider the question of Karanma right

of the Karanma holder in the light of relevant statutes, and

after giving the parties affected, an opportunity of being

heard. The complainant pleaded that in spite of those W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..14..

directions, no steps have been taken by the Travancore Devaswom

Board with regard to the right of Karanma holders. Consequent to

the directions issued by the Division Bench in the above cited

case, the Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement dated

11.7.2000 wherein it has been stated in para 2 thereof that after

considering the contentions urged by the Karanma holders and

perusing relevant documents, it is arrived at a conclusion that it

could be in the best interest of the Board to continue to recognize

the Karanma right as it exists today, and that the rights need be

abolished only when there is no member in the family concerned

to whom the right can be passed on. The then Devaswom

Commissioner also recommended that it is better to continue the

system of Karanma service for the time being, and the Travancore

Devaswom Board arrived at a conclusion that continuance of

Karanma system now in force is more beneficial to the

Devaswoms at present, and as such it may be continued deeming

that the Karanma families continue for the purpose, retaining

the right of the Board to abolish the system if and when

the circumstances arise. [See para 7 of Vishnu Narayanan W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..15..

Namboodiri 's case supra]. On this basis, the Division Bench of this

Court has held in the afore cited decision in para 8 thereof, that in

view of abovesaid decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board

not to abolish the Karanma system, and continue the Karanma

system, and thus put an end to the controversy raised by the

complainants therein. The Division Bench in paras 8 & 9 of the

afore cited judgment has accepted the contention of the

Travancore Devaswom Board therein that the incumbent therein

was not appointed in his right as Karanma holder, but as a special

case, etc. However, the Division Bench has categorically held that

in para 9 thereof as follows:

"9. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the contention of the Travancore Devaswom can be accepted. The Travancore Devaswon Board has now taken the decision to continue the karanma service for the Temples. If karanma service is to be abolished that has to be done by the Travancore Devaswom Board.

According to S.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board shall have absolute control over the holders of all karanma services and also over all the properties, Thiruppuvarams and other emoluments. Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any karanma service is not being regularly performed or that on alienation of karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the karanma holder or by any member or members of the karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senior member, and also to such other members of the karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary and if after hearing their objections if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the karanma service or of the property or of the Thiruppuvarams or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly, W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..16..

the Board shall suspend, remove, deteraine, cancel or deal with any other manner the karanma right of the family to the service. Thus, karanma right has to be protected by the Travancore Devaswom Board. In this case, such action has not been attempted by the Travancore Devaswom Board."

14. It is also relevant in this context to make a reference to

Sec.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

1950, more particularly, Subsection 2 thereof, which reads as

follows:

"28.Board's control over Karanma services._(1) The Board shall have absolute control over the holders of all Karanma services and also over all the properties, Thiruppuvarams and other emoluments attached thereto.

(2) Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed, or that an alienation of Karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the Karanma holder or by any member or members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senor member, and also to such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and if after hearing their objections, if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the Karanrna service or of the property or of the Thiruppuvaram or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly the Board shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanrna right of the family to the service.

(3) All alienations of Service Inam lands attached to specific services which have been or which may hereafter be made contrary to pass usage shall be treated as null and void. The Board shall have power to resume Service Inam lands attached to specific services if such lands are alienated or if the holders of such lands make default in the performance of the services:

Provided that the Board may in its discretion deal with such lands and the services connected therewith in any other manner it may deem fit.

W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..17..

(4) Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any decision passed under sub-sections (2) and (3) may, within a period of one year from the date of such decision, institute in the District Court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of the property:

Provided that, subject to the result of the suit, if any, the decision of the Board passed under sub-section (2) and (3) of this section shall be final ."

15. The abovesaid provision contained in Subsection 2 of

Section 28, is highlighted in para 2 of Ext.P-14 Circular dated

30.9.2003 issued by the Devaswom Board Commissioner. It can

be seen that the Board has decided to continue the Karanma

service in the temples in question, and if the Karanma service is

to be abolished and then that has to be done by the Board as per

Sec.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

1950, the Board shall have the absolute control over the holders of

all Karanma services and over all properties and other

emoluments. Whenever it is reported owing to negligence,

incompetency or other cause, any Karanma service is not being

regularly performed or that on alienation of Karanma service on

property, or other emoluments thereto has been affected by the

Karanma holder or any members of the Karanma family, the

Board shall give notice of charge to the head of the family who is W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..18..

the senior most member and also such other members of the

Karanma family as we hold it deem to be necessary, and after

hearing their objections if any, if the Board is satisfied that there is

alienation of Karanma service or any other property or the

emoluments attached thereto, or there has been failure to perform

the service properly or regularly, then only the Board has the

power to suspend, remove, cancel or deal with in any manner to

the Karanma service of the family. Further, the Division Bench

has categorically and unequivocally declared therein that the

Karanma right has been protected by the Travancore Devaswom

Board, and has also noted therein that in the said case such action

was not even attempted till then, etc.

16. In the instant case, there is no dispute for the

respondents in the WP(C) that the Karanma right is continuing in

the family in question. The respondents in the WP(C) have not

even whispered any iota of objections in their counter affidavit

or in their pleadings in this appeal that either or both the

writ petitioners suffer any legal disability to hold their

position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..19..

Devaswom. So also, the respondents in the WP(C)/appellants

have no case that the Karanma right has been extinguished or

cancelled in the family in question. In that regard, it is specifically

noted that none of the crucial averments in the WP(C) has been in

any manner substantially rebutted in the pleadings of their

counter affidavit. On the other hand, it is indeed admitted in

para 4 of the counter affidavit that as a temporary arrangement,

the first writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages, and later

when the first writ petitioner failed to attend duty, the second writ

petitioner was appointed on daily wages from 2.11.2013. Now, a

volte face is made by the Devaswom Board in their writ appeal

wherein, it is now sought to averred in Ground 'C' thereof and

that too on the first time that there is no evidence on record to

show that the first respondent herein/first writ petitioner was

appointed on daily wages from 1.7.2005. We are really surprised

that such a factual plea is made by the appellants and that too for

the first time in this appeal. Whereas, on the other hand, they

have clearly admitted in the counter affidavit that as a temporary

arrangement, the writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages. W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..20..

17. It is clearly admitted that the Karanma right has been

continuing all along. The appellants also no case that the

certifications of the competent revenue officials like the Village

Officer, the Tahsildar, etc have not been made available in this

case. So also, the appellants have no case that the nomination to

abovesaid position has not been made by the eligible

Karanavar/Moopan of the family, etc. On the other hand it is

clearly admitted in the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed in

the WP(C) that it was the then existing Karanavar/Moopan of the

family who has nominated the first and second writ petitioners for

the periods in question. So also, no objections have been taken

regarding the enquiry reports and certifications made by the

Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc, and also about the various

affidavits and statements etc given by the Karanavar/Moopan, etc.

The appellants have no case that the factual pleadings in the

WP(C) regarding the submission of papers in the case of the first

and second writ petitioners respectively for the relevant periods in

question, were not received by them in time, etc. The only case set

up is that the right for making appointment is for the Travancore W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..21..

Devaswom Board, and they have chosen to make appointment as

per Ext.P-1 and that too only in the case of the second writ

petitioner, and that the second writ petitioner alone will get the

right to receive regular salary, etc and too only prospectively from

the date of issuance of Ext.P-1, ie, 31.8.2016. Further that, prior

thereto, both the writ petitioners were working on daily wages and

not on regular basis, and that the right to secure regular salary etc

will accrue only when the regular appointment order as Ext.P-1 is

issued by the competent authority of the Travancore Devaswom

Board.

18. Our attention is also drawn to the norms at Ext.P-13

which would clearly suggest that even proxies of karanmakkar are

entitled to scale of pay as per G.O. No. 665/D referred to item

No.29 of Ext.P-13. Further, the writ petitioners have also raised

contentions on the basis of Ext.P-14 Circular dated 30.9.2003

issued by the Devaswom Board Commissioner that payment to be

effected to interim vacancies shall be the permissible salary, and

allowances applicable to the Karanma post. Be that as it may, the

prime and real issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..22..

appellants/respondents in the WP(C) can say that even though the

nominees/appointees like the writ petitioners fulfill all the title

condition and have satisfied all the requisite formalities for

discharging the duties and functions in the abovesaid position of

"Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of the temple devaswom

concerned, and whatever be the nature of the delay at the hands of

the Devaswom officials in taking the decision on the

approval/appointment process, the regular salary and allowances

that can be claimed by those incumbents can be only from the

date on which the Devaswom Board authorities would grant

approval or formal appointment order in their case.

19. After hearing both sides, we have no hesitation to hold

that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted relief in this

case. In the instant case, the Karanma right is admittedly

continuing in the family in question. The pleadings in the counter

affidavit filed by the respondents in the WP(C) would clearly show

that the main averments set up in the writ petition are correct.

The earlier incumbent in the abovesaid position had retired.

The then Moopan/Karanavar of the family had made the requisite W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..23..

nomination in the case of the writ petitioners for the period in

question mentioned above. All papers were given in the matter

and even enquiry reports of the revenue officers have also been

duly submitted. After the first writ petitioner had demitted the

office, the second writ petitioner was duly nominated/appointed

by the Karanavar/Moopan and there is no dispute that the said

person who gave the nomination was in fact the senior most

member of the family at the relevant time. When, all the

conditions are duly satisfied, then there cannot be any doubt that

the Devaswom Board authorities cannot sit over those papers and

take their own sweet time, and then pass an order in the nature of

Ext.P-1 much after the nomination/appointment process, and that

too in a case when admittedly, both the writ petitioners have duly

discharged their duties and functions in the abovesaid position,

and there has been no complaints regarding their functioning

from any quarters, including from the Devaswom Board authorities.

There is not even a whisper of the case set up by the Devaswom

Board authorities that any of the jurisdictional facts as envisaged

in Subsection 2 of Section 28 regarding any misdemeanor or W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..24..

inefficiency or negligence, have been shown in the discharge of

duties and functions for the two petitioners herein. But, of course,

there is a slight dispute inasmuch as the writ petitioners would

contend that they stand appointed from the date of nomination

submitted by the Moopan/Karanavar. Whereas, the Devaswom

Board authorities would contend that the power is for the

Commissioner to make appointment and appointment starts only

from the issuance of appointment order. For the time being, we

would proceed on the premise as if the appointment process has

to be duly formalized by the Travancore Devaswom Board

authorities. But, once the nomination was made and all the papers

were clear and enquiry reports were all favourable to the

petitioners, and the Karanma right is in subsistence for the family

concerned, and the nominator has full title to make nomination,

and the nominees also are members of the family who do not

suffer any legal disabilities, then we have no hesitation to hold

that the competent authority of the Devaswom Board should take

a decision in the matter, atleast within 2 to 3 months from the

date of submission of papers in relation to nomination. That, W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..25..

sadly, has not occurred in the instant case. So, the delay on the part

of the appellants is highly arbitrary and capricious. The first writ

petitioner has served for the period from 30.6.2005 up to 1.11.2013.

The second writ petitioner has been serving for the period from

2.11.2013. Ext.P-1 has been issued as late as on 31.8.2016, and that

too only in the case of the second writ petitioner. Hence, we are of

the view that the first writ petitioner should be duly deemed to

have been appointed by the orders of the competent authority of

the Devaswom Board, atleast by 1.10.2005, and the second writ

petitioner should have been deemed to have been appointed in

abovesaid position, atleast from 1.2.2014, ie, expiry of 3 months from

the date of the nomination/commencement of duty. This is the only

slight modification we can make in respect of the directions issued

by the learned Single Judge. The long arbitrary delay of the

Devaswom Board authorities cannot be an excuse to deny the

legitimate and lawful rights of the writ petitioners.

20. Consequently, as ordered by the learned Single Judge,

the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities have to give the

appropriate scale of pay to the first writ petitioner with effect from W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..26..

1.10.2005 up to 31.10.2013, and for the second writ petitioner for

the period from 1.2.2014 onwards. The respective arrears due to

the writ petitioners shall be calculated and disbursed to them

without any further delay, at any rate within a period of an outer

time limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The impugned directions and orders of the learned

Single Judge as per the impugned judgment rendered on

10.10.2019 in WP(C).No.33770/2016 will stand modified to the

limited extent as above. So, no substantial grounds have been

made out by the appellants to warrant any serious interference

with the well considered verdict of the learned Single Judge in this

WP(C), except the slight modifications that we have ordered above.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ

Appeal will stand disposed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

MMG