Allowed

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC4 Dec 2013DBP/57/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suo motu petition based on an Ombudsman report, the High Court ordered the Devaswom Board to refund Rs. 6,000 deducted from the petitioner-santhi's salary for festival assistants, directing the Board to reconsider its expense policy without setting a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 6,000 to the complainant within three weeks; the matter was disposed of without costs.

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

DBP.No. 57 of 2013

¶6

[IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - COMPLAINT RELATED TO THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT - C.D.B REPORT NO.51/13 - SUO MOTU- PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.]

¶7

COMPLAINANT:

¶8

SRI. P.K. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., KOCHIN.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR.

¶11

2. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR.

¶12

3. THE DEVASWOM OFFICER, KUZHUPPILLY SIVA TEMPLE, AYYAMPILLY.P.O.

¶13

COMPLAINANT BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU, R1 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA MENON (S.C, C.D.B), GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A. RANJITH, ADV. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN.

¶14

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶17

B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶19

D.B.P.No. 57 of 2013

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶21

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶24

This is a suo motu action based on the report of the learned Ombudsman (C.D.B. Report No.51/2013). The complainant is one Shri P.K. Narayanan Namboodiri, Santhi of Kuzhuppilly Siva Temple. The essence of the complaint is that during the annual festival in the year 1988 ME two assistants were engaged through the Devaswom Officer for holding Thidampu on the elephant and for helping the Melsanthi. For payment of their remuneration, the Devaswom Officer deducted Rs.6,000/- from his salary and only the balance amount was given to him. According to complainant, the Devaswom Board will have to pay remuneration to the assistants and even though a request was made for refund of the amount, the same was not acceded to.

¶25

The stand taken by the Devaswom Board before the learned Ombudsman is that it is the duty of the Santhi to do the rituals in connection with the Temple festival and as requested by the complainant,

¶26

DBP No.57/2013

¶27

-2-

¶28

additional persons were provided on the assurance that he would meet their expenses.

¶29

In para 5 learned Ombudsman has reported that when the matter was discussed, it was admitted that during the festival period there must be two persons to assist the Santhi as the Thidampu and the Kolam have to be handed over by the assistant to the Santhi sitting on the elephant and another Parikarmi is also necessary. The suggestion made by the learned Ombudsman is that the Board may be directed to reconsider the policy of not paying for the expenses of the additional Santhi and Parikarmi on festival days when the Thidampu has to be taken on elephant, as one Santhi will not be able to do all the work, and appropriate orders may be passed on the complaint by the complainant for refund of the amount spent to the assistants.

¶30

As directed by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Board reiterating their stand that it is the duty of the Santhi to do the rituals and for his convenience additional persons are employed, who will have to be paid by him.

¶31

We heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant, learned

¶32

DBP No.57/2013

¶33

-3-

¶34

Standing Counsel for the Board and learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the learned Ombudsman.

¶35

In the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board, they have stated the practice prevalent in the Temples under the Board. It is averred that the Santhi/Melsanthi of the concerned Temple used to engage additional personnel of their choice during the period of Temple festival and meet their expenses. So far, the Board has not provided any benefits to the personnel engaged by the Santhi/Melsanthi for rendering assistance to him during the period of Temple festival. It is also clear from the affidavit that in some Temples there will be number of such additional persons and the practice followed is that such personnel engaged by the Santhi/Melsanthi would be paid the necessary expenses from the “dakshina” received by the Santhi/Melsanthi.

¶36

We have considered the rival points. As far as the conduct of annual festival of a Temple is concerned, the same is the responsibility of the Board. It is clear from the report of the learned Ombudsman that one additional Santhi and Parikarmi have been engaged in the Temple in question on festival days when Ezhunnallippu has to be conducted on the

¶37

DBP No.57/2013

¶38

-4-

¶39

elephants. Of course, the system with regard to the conduct of Ezhunnallippu and other allied ceremonies are part of the annual festival. Therefore, the prime responsibility for the conduct of the festival being on the Board, it may be a matter for consideration of the Board whether the earlier practice has to be continued or it should be as suggested by the learned Ombudsman. The policy will have to be reconsidered, as it cannot be the sole responsibility of the Melsanthi to pay to the assistants. Now a days, in fact in many of the Temples, Temple Advisory Committees are functioning and various activities are undertaken from the amounts collected by them. Examples are also pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant. In some Temples, during festivals there will be number of elephants also. Therefore, for all those who are engaged for holding Thidambu and doing related duties, the Melsanthi may not be able to spare money from his salary.

¶40

This is a matter where the Board will have to reconsider the policy. The Board can also think of instructing the Temple Advisory Committees to meet the expenses like the one herein from the fund collected for conducting annual festival.

¶41

DBP No.57/2013

¶42

-5-

¶43

As far as the present case is concerned, we direct the Board to

¶44

refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant, without treating it as a

¶45

precedent. The same will be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

The D.B.P. is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶47

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶48

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

kav/

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri v. Cochin 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

Bhargavi Amma Vs M/S.Elampalloor Devaswom Trust

Mrs.Jagadamma Vs Mr.Abdul Razak

Madayi Syamala Vs Sudha Sundareswaran

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

V.C.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala