Disposed

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012WP(C)/25329/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging orders compelling the petitioner, a retiring employee, to undergo a compulsory training course. The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Commissioner within two weeks and quashed the immediate necessity of the training pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation before the 2nd respondent within two weeks. Necessity of training kept subject to Commissioner's order after hearing.

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25329 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MOHANAN NAMPOOTHIRI.V., SANTHI, KADAVOOR DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THATTARAMPALAM SUB GROUP, MAVELIKARA GROUP.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA SRI.R.ROHITH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶11

2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKARA GROUP,MAVELIKARA. 690 101.

¶13

4. SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THATTARAMPALAM SUB GROUP, THATTARAMPALAM (PO), MAVELIKARA. 690 104.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.25329/2012 M

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1 – A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS OF DR.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR THE PETITIONER DATED 1-9-2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2 – A TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE LETTER DATED 18-9-2012 OF DR.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI TO THE NEUROPHYSIOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF V.S.M. HOSPITAL.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE SCAN AND LAB REPORTS DATED 15-10-2012 OF THE NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT OF V.S.M. HOSPITAL, MAVELIKARA.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE SCAN AND LAB REPORTS DATED 15-10-2012 OF THE NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT OF V.S.M. HOSPITAL, MAVELIKARA.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE SCAN AND LAB REPORTS DATED 15-10-2012 OF THE NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT OF V.S.M. HOSPITAL, MAVELIKARA.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4 – A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-10-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P5 – A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1486 DATED 18-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P6 – A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P7 – A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.9200/E1/96/P&ARD DATED 23-8-1997.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 25329 of 2012

¶35

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner, who is on the verge of retirement, is before

¶38

this Court because of Exts.P4 and P5 orders issued by the concerned respondents compelling the petitioner to undergo 'Santhi training course' as detailed therein, at the same time without any default to the regular duty as 'Santhi' in the concerned Temple.

¶39

The case of the petitioner is that, the orders passed by the concerned authority making it obligatory for the petitioner to undergo training at this distance of time are quite unwarranted. The petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is finding it difficult to undergo the training, firstly for the fact that it is only a futile exercise and secondly for the reason that, it is virtually impossible in view of the regular duties to be performed as a 'Santhi' and considering the distance between the residence of the petitioner and the Temple concerned and the training place at Tantrik Vidya Peet at Haripad.

¶40

W.P.C. No. 25329 of 2012

¶41

-2-

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom submits that, imparting training to 'Santhies' is part of the curriculum and that, it is supported by appropriate orders, norms and guidelines. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the said order has been issued pursuant to the basic order issued by the Commissioner and if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, the petitioner is free to approach the Commissioner by filing a detailed representation, on which event, the same can be caused to be considered and disposed of. Specific reference is made to the proceedings R.O.C NO.18761/2008 dated 16.10.2012 as referred to in Ext.P4 dated 25.10.2012.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the petitioner has not been given a copy of the said order passed by the Commissioner and on what basis the Commissioner issued such an order is quite obscure. There is also a challenge with regard to the nature of the duty to be performed and the liability to undergo training, that too, after crossing the age of 50 years. The learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of general guidelines issued by the

¶44

W.P.C. No. 25329 of 2012 -3-

¶45

Government as borne by Ext.P7, no employee who has crossed the age of 50 years can be sent for training

¶46

After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the facts and figures, especially when it involves disputed questions of fact. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a detailed representation before the 2^nd respondent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the same shall be properly considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the 2^nd respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within 'one month' thereafter. The petitioner shall be served with a copy of the order stated as passed by the Commissioner as referred to in Ext.P4 forthwith. The necessity of undergoing training by the petitioner will be subject to the orders to be passed by the Commissioner.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶49

Kp/-

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. 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

The Manager Vs the Government of Kerala

The Manager, Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

The Manager, a.U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith.Raj.D. Vs Mahatma Gamndhi University

P.v.Babu Vs the State of Kerala