Kerala High Court
E.Sasidharan Embrandiri vs The State Of Kerala on 5 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18537 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
E.SASIDHARAN EMBRANDIRI
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. E. KRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI, KEEZ SANTHI, SREE
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 688
BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
001
2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER,
ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE 673 006
4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOR TALUK,
CHITTOR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 688
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM
BOARD
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI.M.K.SREEGESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH
WP(C)Nos.20360/2020 AND 12582/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 20360 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.P.VIMALA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O MURALI MENON, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
2 P.A.MINI,
W/O P. MADHAVAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
3 K. KOMALAM,
W/O APPUKUTTAN, SWEEPER, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM,
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-678 688
4 K. SELVARAJAN,
S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR (LATE), WATCHMAN,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
5 K. RADHA,
W/O RAMAN, SWEEPER, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM,
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-678 688
6 A.V.SARASWATHY,
W/O SASIDHARAN, KAZHAKAM, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM,
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN-678 688
7 P.M. SREEDHARAN,
S/O MANIYAN MARAR (LATE), VADHYAM, THRUPPALLAVOOR
DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
8 N. RAMAN,
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-3-
S/O NARAYANAN (LATE), WATCHMAN, THRUPPALLAVOOR
DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
9 R. NARAYANAN EMBRANDIRI,
S/O RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANDIRI (LATE), MELSANTHI,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
10 A. DEVI,
W/O ACHUTHAN (LATE), RETIRED LOWER DIVISION CLERK,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
11 C. RAGHAVA PISHARODI,
S/O NARAYANA PISHARODI, RETIRED THALAM,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
12 C.R.NARAYANAN,
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, RETIRED KEEZHEDOM SANTHI,
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR
P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
13 BALAN @ KESAVANKUTTY
RETIRED KOBU, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR
TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
14 C. SANAL KUMAR,
FORMER VADHYAM, PAZHAMCHERI, THENNILAPURAM,
PALAKKAD-678 687
BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER,
ERANHIPALAM P.O.KOZHIKODE-673 006.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM
P.O.KOZHIKODE-673 006.
4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK,
CHITTOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
P.B.KRISHNAN
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-4-
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
MANU VYASAN PETER
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP. PREMCHAND R. NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH
WP(C)Nos.18537/2020 AND 12582/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12582 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
C.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. LATE C. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, WORKING AS
MELSHANTHI, KARIVELLUR SHIVA TEMPLE, KARIVELLUR P.
O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670521.
BY ADV P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM -
695 001.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERANHIPALAM P. O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM P. O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KASARGOD DIVISION,
NEELESWARAM P. O., KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314.
5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM, DEVASWOMS, CHIRAKKAL P. O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 011.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.18537
AND 20360/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18537 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
E.SASIDHARAN EMBRANDIRI
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. E. KRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI, KEEZ SANTHI, SREE
THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN 678 688
BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER,
ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006.
3 THE COMMISSIONER,
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE 673 006
4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOR TALUK, CHITTOR
P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 688
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SRI.M.K.SREEGESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).20360/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
-7-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 05th day of July, 2022
(W.P.(C) Nos.18537 & 20360 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 12582
of 2021)
The pitiable service conditions and meagre
wages of the employees attached to the temples in
Malabar, when compared to their counterparts in
Travancore and Cochin, had compelled a Division
Bench of this Court to register a suo motu case.
The issue faced by the hapless employees were
elaborately considered by the Division Bench in
In Re: Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area [AIR
1995 Ker. 172], the concluding portion of which
contains the following directions;
'1. The Government of Kerala and the
Hindu Religious and Endowment Department
shall prepare a scheme within a period of
six months in respect of the temples in
Malabar region including Kasaragod
district under the administration and
governance of the Department as well as
other public temples which do not come
under the purview of the Act;
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
2. First respondent shall fix the
reasonable remuneration to be paid to the
various employees in the temples in
Malabar;
3. In fixing such reasonable remuneration
the Government may take guidance from the
scale of pay and other allowances paid to
similar employees under the Travancore and
Cochin Devaswom Boards;
4. The scheme shall also take into account
all public temples in Malabar irrespective
of the fact whether they are big or small
and whether they are under the
administration of the Department or not;
5. Respondents 1 and 2 shall find out the
ways and means to raise the income of the
temples for the purpose of such payment;
6. The first respondent shall prepare the
final annuity statements in respect of the
temples within a period of one year and
the annuity on that basis shall be paid
without further delay;
7. The first respondent shall consider the
requirement or revision of annuity
periodically in accordance with the rise
in price of the commodities and the
annuity should be revised on that basis;
8. First respondent shall ensure
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
utilisation of the income which they are
getting from the forest lands owned by the
Devaswom in Malabar which got vested in
the Government under Section 3(1) of the
Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment)
Act;
9. The first respondent shall, though not
liable to pay such income to the owners to
whom the lands belonged, pool the income
in a common fund to be utilised for the
temples in Malabar including the wages
payable to the employees thereunder:
10. The scheme to be framed by the first
respondent shall be implemented by the
second respondent within a period of one
year from this date:
11. The order for payment of reasonable
wages to the temple employees shall come
into operation from 1st January, 1995.
12. In view of our finding that inequality
is writ large on the face of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act in its application to the former
Malabar District, the Act is likely to
suffer a serious and successful challenge
in case that inequality is not removed by
appropriate legislation. We grant a period
of one year for this purpose.
13. We direct the Government to consider
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
the formation of a Board for the temples
in Malabar and a unified Board for all the
regions viz. Travancore, Cochin and
Malabar on the lines of the
recommendations made by Kuttikrishna Menon
Committee and Sankaran Nair Commission.'
2. In purported compliance of the
directions, the Government issued G.O.(MS)
No.415/96/RD dated 6.8.1996, unifying the scales
of pay of the employees with effect from
01.01.1995. The Government also constituted a
separate fund called the 'Malabar Devaswom
Management Fund', as per G.O.(MS) No.481/95/Rd
dated 10.10.1995. An initial amount of Rs.1 Crore
was sanctioned for assisting the needy temples in
paying salary to its employees. The amount was
enhanced to Rs.3 Crores as per G.O.(MS) No.238/RD
dated 15.7.2004.
3. By Act 31 of 2008, the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
(the Act' for short) was amended by incorporating
Section 7A providing for constitution of the
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
Malabar Devaswom Board. Section 80 provides for
grants from the Government and Section 81
empowers the Board to constitute a fund called
'the Malabar Deavaswom Fund'. Later, G.O.(MS)
No.116/2009/RD dated 28.02.2009 was issued
revising the salary of employees in temples under
the Malabar Devaswom Board. Immediately
thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(MS)
No.433/2009/RD dated 2.11.2009, clarifying that
the Malabar Devaswom Board should ensure that
administrative expense of the Devaswoms do not
exceed 50% of their annual income and if 50% is
not sufficient to meet the administrative
expense, the balance amount can be disbursed from
the Management Fund. This was followed by G.O.
(MS) No.258/2010/RD dated 01.07.2010, as per
which only Devaswoms with less than Rs.5 lakhs
annual income became entitled to receive the
amount in excess of 50% of annual income for
meeting their administrative expense. By
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
subsequent Government orders, the upper limit for
receiving grant from the management fund towards
administrative expense was raised to Rs.10 lakhs,
15 lakhs and 20 lakhs.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18537 of
2020 is a Santhi in Sree Thruppallavoor Devaswom
in Palakkad District, which is a B Grade Devaswom
and a notified temple under the Act with annual
income of more than Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioners
in W.P.(C) No.20360 of 2020 are the serving and
retired employees of the same Devaswom. The
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12582 of 2021 is the
Melsanthi of Karivellur Siva Temple, which is a B
Grade Temple under Chirakkal Kovilakom Devaswom.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-payment
of their eligible salary, due to the upper limit
of Rs.20 lakhs prescribed as eligibility for
receiving management fund towards administrative
expense incurred in excess of 50% of the annual
income. The petitioners contend that, all
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
throughout, the employees of the temples in
Malabar area have been discriminated against on
the premise that the erstwhile Malabar area was
part of Madras State and temples in Malabar was
governed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments
Act, 1926. The petitioners allege that the
directions of the Division Bench in In Re:
Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area have not
been complied in their letter and spirit.
Moreover, whatever attempt is made to comply with
the direction regarding payment of salary to the
employees is stultified by imposing an
unconscionable condition that no financial aid
will be granted to temples with annual income of
more than Rs.20 lakhs.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the pay fixation/revision orders
of the employees in the temples in Malabar was
issued only after judicial intervention. The
benefit granted by the right hand is now being
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
taken away by the left, by incorporating an
income limit of Rs.20 lakhs. To prove this
contention, learned Counsel pointed out that, as
against an eligible total salary of
Rs.33,05,540/- due to the 11 employees in
Thruppallavoor Devaswom for the year 2019, only
Rs.15,82,458/- has been paid. The total salary
payable to the employees from 2011 to 2019 is
Rs.2,53,62,632/- as against which
Rs.1,22,82,148/- alone is paid. Although the
annual income of the temple is more than Rs.20
lakhs, the administrative expenses, which
includes salary to the employees, expenditure
toward repairs and renovation, conduct of
festivals etc, is much more than 50% of the
income. The refusal on the part of the
respondents to disburse any amount from the
Management Fund for the expense incurred in
excess of 50% of the annual income, has resulted
in denial of salary to the petitioners.
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
Attention is drawn to the observations and the
findings in In Re: Temples in the erstwhile
Malabar area, temples to point out that the
Malabar Devaswom Board as well as the Government
is duty bound to ensure payment of eligible
salary to the employees. The Government cannot
shirk away from this responsibility, by pleading
financial stringency.
6. It is pointed out that the Division
Bench had taken note that the income from the
private forest belonging to the Devaswoms, which
got vested with the Government on the
introduction of the Private Forest (Vesting and
Assignment) Act, is than sufficient to pay the
salary due to the employees. Even otherwise,
denial of salary to the employees in Malabar,
while paying more salary to the employees in
Travancore and Cochin for the same work,
militates against the well settled principle of
equal pay for equal work.
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
7. Adv.Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing
Counsel for the Devaswom Board, submitted that
the petitioners are not entitled for any relief,
insofar as they have not challenged the first
order by which a limit was prescribed for grant
of aid to Devaswoms from the Management Fund. The
further contention is that there is clear
distinction between the management and
functioning of temples in Malabar and the
Travancore/Cochin. The temples in Malabar
belongs to families/trusts and the primary
responsibility of maintaining the temple and
paying salary is with the trust. Even though
supervisory powers are vested with the Malabar
Devaswom Board under the Act, only Section 76
provides for contribution to the Management Fund,
that too limited to temples with income above
the prescribed limit. As such, the Management
Fund is almost completely dependent on grant-in-
aid from the Government. In such circumstances,
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
the Government is fully justified in
incorporating a condition that temples having
income above Rs.20 lakhs will not be entitled for
financial aid from the Management Fund.
8. Learned Government Pleader contended
that the temples in Malabar belong to private
trusts, the superintendence of which alone is
entrusted with the Malabar Devaswom Board.
Insofar as the Government has constituted a
Management Fund and is providing grant-in-aid,
the Government cannot be mulcted with the
liability of paying salary to the employees of
the temples.
9. In my considered opinion, in view of the
specific findings and directions in In Re:
Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area, it is no
longer open for the Malabar Devaswom Board or the
Government to contend that they are not vested
with the responsibility of paying salary to the
temple employees. For answering the said
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
contention, one need only refer to the questions
formulated by the Division Bench, which are as
under;
"Can a direction be given to the
Trustees of the various temples to revise the
pay scales of the employees? Has the
Government any responsibility in the matter of
providing living wages to the employees? Can
the Government disclaim liability to make the
requisite provisions for the wages of the
employees? These are some of the pertinent
questions which require answer in this
original petition."
For deciding the above questions, the Division
Bench relied on the Apex Court decision in All
India Imam Organsation v. Union of India [(1999)
3 SCC 584], which was rendered in the context of
the Wakf Act. The questions are seen answered at
paragraphs 27 to 30 of the judgment extracted
hereunder;
''27. The Preamble to the Wakf Act, 1954
(Act 29/1954) states that it is an Act to
provide for the better administration and
supervision of the Wakfs. In the statement
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
of objects and. reasons it is mentioned that
the management of Wakfs, though it vests
immediately in a Mutawalli, is a subject
which requires the supervision of the State.
The need for supervision has been felt and
in addition to various enactments dealing
with the subject of charitable: endowments,
the Musalman Wakf Act of 1923 was enacted
for the whole of India. Enactments were
introduced in some of the States also. The
working of these Acts has brought out the
necessity of amendments. Some of the States
had no Act at all for the purpose. The
necessity of a uniform and consolidated
legislation resulted in the passing of the
Wakf Act, 1954. The Preamble to the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1951 applicable to the Malabar Region
of the State of Kerala states that it is an
Act to provide for the better administration
and governance of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Institutions and Endowments in
the State of Madras of which Malabar region
including the present Kasaragod District was
a part then. The powers and duties of the
Commissioner are embodied in Section 20 of
the Act. Section 23 enjoins a duty on the
Trustee Board to obey all lawful orders
issued by the Government, the Commissioner,
the Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
of the Assistant Commissioner. The Trustees
are bound to furnish to the Commissioner
such accounts, returns, reports or other
information relating to the administration
of the institution. The trustee of a
religious institution is authorised to incur
expenditure as provided in Sub-section (1)
of Section 30 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of
that section stipulates that the trustee
shall have due regard to such general or
special instruction as may be given by the
Commissioner or in the case of an
institution over which an Area Committee has
jurisdiction also by such Committee in
incurring such expenditure. The Commissioner
is also given powers under Section 31 of the
Act to declare that after satisfying
adequately the purposes of the religious
institution, the surplus, if any, may be
appropriated to religious, educational or
charitable purposes. Under Section 45 of the
Act the Deputy Commissioner in the case of
any religious institution over which an area
committee has jurisdiction and the
Commissioner in the case of any other
religious institution is given the power to
suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or
non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof
on the grounds mentioned therein. Though the
trustee has got power to suspend, remove or
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
dismiss any of the servants or office-
bearers attached to a religious institution,
the person so suspended, removed or
dismissed is given a right under Sub-section
(2) of Section 49 to appeal against that
order to the Deputy Commissioner from whose
decision an appeal lies to the Commissioner
under Sub-section (3) of that section. The
Deputy Commissioner is given power
under Section 58 to settle a scheme for a
religious institution when he has reason to
believe that it is necessary in the
interests of the proper administration of a
religious institution.
28. The provisions of the Act (1951)
referred to in the foregoing paragraph
indicate the wide powers conferred on the
Department in the matter of management of
temples and the Utilisation of the income
therefrom. On a consideration of the various
provisions contained in the Hindu Religious
Endowment Act and the provisions in the Wakf
Act, we see no difference in the matter of
supervision and control of the religious
institutions by the HR & CE Department
(Department for short) and the Wakf Board in
the case of Wakfs. On the other hand, the
Preamble to the Hindu Religious Endowment
Act suggests that the Act is intended not
only for the better administration of the
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions,
but also their governance. By 'governance'
is meant to rule with authority. The various
provisions of the Act extracted in the
foregoing paragraphs would indicate that the
Department is the predominant force as far
as the temples in Malabar are concerned. By
looking at the purpose of the legislation
and the various provisions contained therein
we are of the firm view that the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in the Imam's
case (AIR 1993 SC 2086) squarely apply to
the present case also. The request of the
counsel for respondents 3 to 16 for issue of
directions similar to those issued by the
Supreme Court in the Imam's case is
therefore justified. We are of the view that
similar directions are to be issued in this
case also.
29. One of the contentions advanced by the
learned Government Pleader is that the
grievances of the employees can be redressed
only consistent with the financial position
of the Government. Even in the statement
filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned
that the problem can be solved only without
spending any more Government funds.
Government Pleader would therefore submit
that a revision of the wages of the
employees is not possible by utilising
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
Government funds. The Supreme Court in
Imam's case (AIR 1993 SC 2086) has in very
clear terms observed that it is the duty of
the Wakf Boards to harness resources to pay
the Imams who perform the most important
duty, namely, of leading community prayer in
a mosque. It is not therefore open either to
the Government or to the Department to throw
up their hands in despair and say that they
are not possessed of sufficient funds to
meet the demands of the temple employees.
The Department which is authorised by the
Act to administer and govern the endowments
has thus a duty to harness the resources and
to pay living wages as suggested by the
Supreme Court in the Imam's case.
30. Even otherwise, the Government cannot
disclaim the liability to pay living wages
to the employees in view of the vesting of
temple lands in the Government as on 1-1-
1970 as well as the vesting of the private
forests owned by the Devaswoms in the
Malabar region. True, the Kerala Land
Reforms Act provides for payment of annuity.
It is in evidence that the final annuity
statements had not so far been prepared. The
vesting took place on 1-1-1970. Even two
decades thereafter Government was not able
to prepare the final annuity statement. The
explanation of the Government appears to be
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
that particulars of records were not
obtained from the various Land Tribunals,
the Land Board and other authorities. The
lands having been vested in the Government
on 1-1-1970 and the Devaswoms deprived of
their right to collect the rent from the
tenants, Government owes a duty to get the
annuity statement prepared and pay the
annuity periodically without any delay
whatsoever. The purpose for incorporating a
provision in the Act for payment of annuity
to the Devaswoms is defeated by such delay.
It is no doubt pointed out that interim
annuity statements are prepared and
periodical payments are made. But that is
hot sufficient to meet the expenses of the
temples. Even the annuity payable under the
Act will not be sufficient to meet the
demands. One can visualise the situation
when even that much amount is not being paid
in time. Government do not appear to be
serious on the aspect of preparing annuity
statements or in the matter of providing
annuity to the various temples which is not
even the bare minimum that is required for
the sustenance of the employees. We hope
that 1st respondent would consider this
matter with all seriousness and see that the
final annuity statements with respect to the
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
Devaswoms in Malabar area are prepared
without any further delay.''
10. Pertinently, the Division Bench refused
to accept the Government's contention regarding
lack of funds and made the following
observations;
"37. Yet another contention advanced on behalf
of respondents 1 and 2 is that the temple funds
are not made available to the Government and
Government has thus no liability to make the
payments. The learned Govt. Pleader has also
attempted to highlight the difference between
the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards and
the temples in Malabar. As observed by the
Supreme Court in the Imam's case (AIR 1993 SC
2086), the 2nd respondent has to harness the
resources for making payments to the various
employees in the temples in Malabar. Here itself
it has to be mentioned that the direction for
payment is applicable not only to the 1269
temples under the administration and governance
of the Department, but also the other public
temples numbering about 2000 which do not come
within the purview of the Act."
The court also observed that sufficient or more
income for paying the salary is being generated
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
by the forests owned by the temples/trusts, which
had vested with the Government on the
introduction of the Kerala Private Forests
(Vesting and Assignment) Act. Based on the above
findings, direction No.8 was issued to ensure
utilisation of the income which Devaswoms are
getting from the forests, that got vested in the
Government under Section 3(1) of the Kerala
Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. As
per direction No.9, the Government is bound to
pool that income into a common fund to be
utilised for meeting the expenditure of the
temples in Malabar, including the wages payable
to the employees.
11. Therefore, the Government cannot shirk
away from its responsibility of ensuring payment
of reasonable wages to the employees of the
temples in Malabar by putting forth an excuse
regarding lack of funds.
12. As rightly contended by the petitioners,
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
by bringing about a cap on disbursal of
Management Fund, based on the annual income of
Devaswoms, the Government is discriminating the
employees based on a factor over which they have
no control. Moreover, the impact of the order is
to deny eligible salary to a group of employees.
This irrationality of Governmental action is
evident from the details available in the
statement filed by the official respondents
themselves. The details are extracted hereunder
for easy reference;
Year Assessable 50% of Income Salary Expense Salary
income denied due
to the cap
of Rs.20
lakhs
2013 16,54, 703/- 8,27,232/- 26,94,236/- 18,67,004/-
2014 18,78,152/- 9,39,076/- 29,40,630/- 20,01,554/-
2015 9,93,247/- 9,96,624/- 29,16,753/- 19,20,129/-
2016 23,94,793/- 11,97,397/- 30,17,698/- 18,20,301/-
2017 25,69,134/- 12,84,367/- 30,26,867/- 17,42,500/-
2018 28,81,367/- 14,40,684/- 33,06,426/- 18,65,742/-
2019 28,24,590/- 14,12,295/- 33,05,540/- 18,93,245/-
13. It may also be contextually relevant to
note that, as per Section 8B(2) of the Act, the
Board has the power to fix and regulate the
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
service conditions and pay structure of the
officers and employees of the temples from time
to time and to supervise its implementation.
Under Section 38, the Commissioner has to publish
a list of religious institution, whose annual
income is not less than the amount calculated for
the purpose of levy of contribution under Section
76. As per Section 76(1), religious institution
listed under Section 38 are bound to pay to the
Board annual contribution not exceeding 5 per
centum of its income. Section 80 provides for
grant from the Government to the Board, for being
utilised for the purpose of the Act and Section
81 provides for constitution of a fund called the
Malabar Devaswom Fund. Section 81(c)(1) casts a
duty on the Board to prepare a budget showing the
probable receipts and disbursements of the
temples, institutions and endowments under the
management of the Board during the financial
year. The above provisions give adequate
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
indication that under the scheme of the Act also,
the Government and the Board are bound to provide
funds for the maintenance of temples and payment
of salary to the employees.
The above discussion leads to the only
conclusion that, in view of the decision of the
Division Bench and the provisions of the Act
referred above, the salary of the petitioners is
liable to be paid, despite the financial bar
fixed by the Government orders. Consequently, the
respondents are directed to pay eligible salary
to the petitioners as per the pay fixation
orders. The necessary funds for this purpose
shall be made available by the Government in
terms of direction Nos.8 and 9 in In Re: Temples
in the erstwhile Malabar area. The arrears of
salary due to the petitioners shall be paid
within three months of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
In W.P.(C) No.12582 of 2021, this Court has
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
already issued directions to disburse
petitioner's salary as per Ext.P5 and P7
judgments. In the light of the directions in the
afore judgments and the findings herein, entire
eligible salary shall be paid to the petitioner
from 01.08.2022 onwards and arrears of salary
shall be disbursed within two months of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18537/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) 116/2009/RD
DATED 28-02-2009 PAY REVISION ORDER OF
TEMPLE EMPLOYEES
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 433/09/RD DATED
2-11-2009 ANOMALY RECTIFICATION PAY
REVISION ORDER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O
(RT) 277/19/R DATED 3-09-2019 ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED RESPONSE
DATED 19-03-2020 FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM GANGA
MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL (P)
LTD.COIMBATORE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THANKAM
HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20360/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) 116/2009/RD
DATED 28.2.2009 PAY REVISION ORDER OF
TEMPLE EMP-LOYEES
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) 433/09/RD DATED
2.11.2009 ANOMALY RECTIFICATION PAY
REVISION ORDER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO
(RT) 277/19/R DATED 3.9.2019 ISSUED BY
1ST RESPONDENT
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12582/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.116/2009
RD DATED 28.02.2009.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.H4.1665/09/M.D.B. DATED 18.03.2009
IMPLEMENTING EXT. P1, ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT (RELEVANT PAGE)
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO.6971/2015/
RD DATED 31.12.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J4
6265/10/MDB DATED 8.09.2010 ISSUED BY
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
06.10.2020 IN WP(C) NO.18141/2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED
01.11.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY JUDGMENT DATED
30.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO.3551/2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
KERALA BANK DATED 14/09/2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASS BOOK ISSUED
DATED 10/05/2017 OF DEVASWAM EMPLOYEES
AND PENSIONERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT
SOCIETY LIMITED
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY
DATED 11/12/2021
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM
CHERUTHAZHAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK DATED
25/12/2021
W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases
