Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs S.Ramalingam on 15 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Chennai – 34.
2.The Executive Officer,
Ramalingaswamy Thirukkoil,
Panagudi, Tirunelveli District. : Appellants
Vs.
S.Ramalingam : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.2644 of 2016, dated
20.11.2019 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent : Mr.C.Muthu Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellants and Mr.Muthu Thiagarajan,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order in W.P(MD)No.
2644 of 2016, dated 20.11.2019.
3.The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and the Executive Officer of Ramalingaswamy
Thirukkoil, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District are the appellants in this writ
appeal. The respondent / writ petitioner prayed for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the appellants to grant wages and disburse the
petitioner's wages as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.257 Tamil Development,
Culture and Religious Endowment Department dated 10.06.1998. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
learned Single Bench by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition,
after considering the arguments on either side.
4.We find that in the writ petition, a report was filed by the
Commissioner, HR & CE, wherein, it has been stated that an
announcement has been made by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on the
floor of the assembly under Rule 110 to regularise all daily wages /
consolidated pay employees who are working for more than five years as
on 31.07.2014, in the temples under the control of the HR & CE
Department and accordingly, Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.62 TC &
RE (RE4-1) department dated 18.02.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.128, TC & RE
(RE4-1) Department dated were passed. The Commissioner, has referred
to Section 116 of the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act, 22 of 1959 [Tamil Nadu
Act XXII of 1959] and Rule 17 of the Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers
and Servants) Service Rules, 1964.
5.Further, it is stated that the respondent / writ petitioner was
inducted as a Melakkar in the said temple in the year 2004 based on the
Special Welfare Scheme announced by the then Chief Minister on the
floor of the Assembly and was regularized in service by exercising powers
under Section 116 (2) (xxiii) r/w. Rule 17 of the said Rules. It is submitted
that the respondent / writ petitioner attained the age of 40 years by then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
and did not posses the necessary qualification and he was regularised as
a special case by exercising the powers of the Commissioner in pursuance
of the above Government Orders. Therefore, it is submitted that the
respondent / writ petitioner cannot claim retrospectively he has to be
regularised by virtue of the Government Order in the year 1998. Further,
it is submitted that the Government Order issued in the year 1998 relates
to the 5th Pay Commission which was constituted to fix time scale of pay
for the permanent employees of the temples. Further, the services of the
respondent/writ petitioner being regularised based on the announcement
made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the scale of pay can be given only
from the date of issuance of the Government Order ie., w.e.f. 18.02.2015.
6.The learned Writ Court, took note of the report filed by the
Commissioner, HR & CE, but allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that
the Musicians and Othuvars functioning in the temples have to be
protected and in this regard referred to W.P.(MD)No.24176 of 2018 dated
18.10.2019 and allowed the writ petition. The learned Government
Counsel produced before us the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner
dated 10.06.2021, wherein the pay scale of the petitioner has been
revised. The details of the revised pay fixation is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
7.The petitioner's case is that he was appointed by the board of
trustees and in terms of Section 55 of the Act, the Department cannot
exercise any power to regularise the services. In this regard, learned
Counsel has referred to the following judgments:
i) Assistant Commissioner / Executive
Officer, Arulmigu Vana Badrakaliamman Temple,
Thekkampattai, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore
District Vs. T.Kumaresan and 2 others reported in
2000 Writ L.R. 364.
ii) The Mayavaram Financial Chit
Corporation Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Registrar of
Chits reported in 2000 Writ L.R. 367.
iii) S.Balaji Rajah Bonsle Chatrapathy Vs.
The Commissioner, HR & CE and another reported
in 2007-3-L.W. 954.
iv) Arulmigu Vaithianathaswamy
Devasthanam Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary, Tamil Development
Religious Endowment and Information
Department, Chennai & others reported in (2012)
8 MLJ 735.
8.There is record to show that the respondent / writ petitioner
was appointed by the then board of trustees on 01.02.1985 in a
retirement vacancy which occurred on 31.01.1985 and copy of the service
roll which was opened on declaration of proof is dated 05.11.1991.
Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the stand of the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
department that the respondent was appointed for the first time in terms
of the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as the
respondent / writ petitioner was already an employee of the temple. Very
recently, ie., on 20.02.2020, a circular has been issued by the
Commissioner to all officials of the department. The circular reads as
follows:
“,e;epiyapy; nkw;go murhizapy; bjhptpj;Js;sgo
ehj];tu fiyQh;fs; jtph;j;J ,ju ,irfiyQh;fSf;F ve;j njjp
Kjy; jpUj;jpa Cjpak; eph;zak; bra;antz;Lk; vd;fpw bjspt[iu
tHq;ff;nfhhp gy;ntW rhh;epiy mYtyh;fsplkpUe;J tug;bgw;w
mwpf;iffspd; mog;gilapy; ,J Fwpj;jhd jpUj;jpa murhiz
nfhhp ghh;it 3-d; muRf;F Kd;bkhHpt[ mDg;gg;gl;lJ.”
9.Thus, in terms of the above circular, the respondent / writ
petitioner is entitled for his salary to be refixed with effect from
01.07.1997. In fact, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that the respondent is not insisting upon payment of the scale
of pay as that of the senior grade temple namely, Arulmigu Meenakshi
Sundareshwarar Temple, Madurai, from which a litigation arose and
circular dated 20.02.2020 was issued.
10.In the light of the above, we find that the order and direction
issued in the Writ Court cannot be interfered for reasons assigned by us
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
in the preceding paragraphs. While we take note of the fact that the
salary has been refixed, which order is yet to be communicated to the
respondent/writ petitioner, we direct the respondent / writ petitioner to
accept the refixed salary, without prejudice to his rights and issue a
direction to the appellants to take note of the appointment of the
petitioner by the then board of trustees on 01.02.1985 and opening of
service register dated 05.11.1995 and consequently, revise the scale of
pay of the respondent with effect from 01.07.1997, in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1998 and by applying and the recent circular
by the Commissioner dated 20.02.2020 and the scale of pay shall be fixed
as applicable to the junior grade temples. This direction be complied with
by the appellants within a period of three [3] months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
11.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
15.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1140 of 2021
15.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
