Dismissed

Rama Bhadran Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC5 Dec 2008WP(C)/32112/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for regularisation as full-time Santhi, holding that his contract appointment was issued in pursuance of an interim order permitting only temporary engagement without rights to regularisation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to claim regularisation in service; Board to consider his claim if a full-time post is later sanctioned.

Rama Bhadran Potti Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 32112 of 2008(W)

PETITIONER:

RAMA BHADRAN POTTI, SANTHIKARAN, MATHIRA PEADIKA DEVI TEMPLE, RESIDING AT SREE NIKATHAN, PUTHUSSERRY, MATHIRA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.T.M.RESHMI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

TRAVANCORE DEVASWAM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NANDANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWAM BOARD, NANDANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURM.

¶15

ASSISTANT DEVASWAM COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, PUNALUR.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) FOR R1-3

¶17

SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1-3

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J

¶20

W.P.(C) NO: 32112 of 2008 ----------------------------Dated this 5^th day of December, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.P.Pratheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Gopal, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶23

The petitioner is presently working as Santhi in the Mathira Peadika Devi Temple in the Punalur group of temples. He was appointed as Santhi with effect from 24-42000 on contract basis. In this writ petition he claims appointment as full time Santhi. In the alternative he prays for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider the request made by him in Ext.P2 representation dated 22-8-2008 for appointment as full time Santhi.

¶24

Sri.P.Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that appointment of a part time Santhi on contract basis was made by the Upadeshaka Samithi of the Mathira Peadika Devi Temple pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in O.P.No.12065 of 1998. Initially the appointment was for a period of one year. He submits that by judgment delivered on 19-3-1999 the said original petition

¶25

wpc:32112 of 2008

¶26

¶27

was disposed of with a direction to appoint a Santhi and Panchavadyam artist on a temporary basis without any claim for regularisation or other benefits other than payment of salary and allowances as per the rules. The learned standing counsel further submits that the petitioner was appointed as part time Santhi on contract basis pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in O.P.No.12065 of 1998 and that in view of the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation in service except the right to receive salary and allowances as per the rules. The learned standing counsel also submits that the income from the temple is meagre and therefore the Board cannot sanction a full time post of Santhi and make regular appointments.

¶28

It is brought to my notice that the petitioner is presently being paid Rs.2100/- plus allowances, as emoluments. I have perused a copy of the judgment in O.P.No12065 of 1998. In the light of the directions therein, only temporary appointment on contract basis without any right to be regularised in service could have been made by the Board. The petitioner was appointed as a part time Santhi on contract basis pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in

¶29

wpc:32112 of 2008

¶30

O.P.No.12065 of 1998. Such being the situation, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation in service. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that as and when a full time post of Santhi is sanctioned in the temple where the petitioner is working, the Board shall consider his claim in accordance with the rules.

¶31

bps

Rama Bhadran Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Bhadran Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rethi K.V. Vs State of Kerala

G.Jayakumari Vs the Addl.Chief Secretary and Another

K.Rajan Vs the Food Corporation of India

K.Vasudevan Nair Vs the Commr.,Rural Devpt.Dept.Tvpm.&Ors.

K.Thankamani Vs Employment Officer and Others

C.Varghese Vs Union of India