Allowed

A.P.Vasanthakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016WP(C)/31026/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees of a Special Grade Temple approached the High Court of Kerala seeking extension of a government order revising salaries applicable to similar temples. The court held that since the temple has sufficient income to bear the revision cost without government liability, the benefit must be extended. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Extended the salary revision benefit to employees of the 3rd respondent Temple within one month; no costs.

A.P.Vasanthakumar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 31026 of 2015 (C)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. A.P. VASANTHAKUMAR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD -678 013.

¶8

2. S. SIJU, LOWER DIVISION CLERK SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD -678 013.

¶9

3. P. BALADAS, LOWER DIVISION CLERK

¶10

SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD -678 013.

¶11

4. M.B. PRASADKUMAR, PEON

¶12

SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD -678 013.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

¶14

KUM.ANJU CLETUS

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶17

2. THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE ERANHIPALAM -673 017, KOZHIKODE.

¶18

3. SREE MANAPPULLY BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MANAPPULLY DEVASWOM OFFICE, EAST YAKKARA PALAKKAD 678 013.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶20

SRI.P.A.HARISH SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN

¶21

SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶22

SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No. 31026 of 2015 (C)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶27

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.07.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.03.2015 OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEVASWOM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.03.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.09.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2015 IN WPC. NO.24492 OF 2015.
EXT.P6	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2015 IN WPC. NO. 1524 OF 2015.
RESPONDEN ------------------	TS' EX ---------	HIBITS:- ------------
EXT.R2(A)	-	COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.116/2009/RD DATED 28.02.2009.
EXT.R2(B)	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2013 IN WP(C) NO.30030 OF 2012.
EXT.R2(C)	-	COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 23.05.2014 OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXT.R2(D)	-	COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.37732014/RD DATED 11/08/2014.
EXT.R2(E)	-	COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 19.01.2012 OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXT.R2(F)	-	COPY OF THE DECISIONS DATED 09.03.2012 OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXT.R2(G)	-	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J6/490/12 DATED 11/05/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.R2(H)	-	COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.415/96 DATED 06.08.1996. //TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶29

¶30

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.31026 of 2015-C

¶32

---------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioners are employees of the 3^rd respondent Temple, admittedly a Special Grade Temple, coming under the supervision and control of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The classification as a Special Grade Temple is also on the basis of the income generated in the Temple.

¶35

The short prayer of the petitioners, the employees of the Temple, is that the order at Ext.P1 be extended to them. Ext.P1 is an order of the Government, making the revision of salary, applicable to the Government employees

¶36

W.P.(C) No.31026 of 2015-C

¶37

¶38

as per GO(P) No.85/11/Fin. dated 26.02.2011, made applicable with prospective effect to certain Special Grade Temples. The petitioners' contention is that, the 3^rd respondent Temple is similarly placed as the Temples, which have been granted such benefit as per Ext.P1. It is also submitted that the respondent Temple does not get any grant from the Government and the Government has no additional financial liability, if the said orders are implemented.

¶39

A representation was preferred before the Commissioner of the Board by Ext.P2, wherein the statistics, with respect to the income generated in the Temple and the assets acquired from the income generated, had been stated. The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would concur with the statements in Ext.P2 and would admit that if the revision

¶40

W.P.(C) No.31026 of 2015-C

¶41

¶42

of salary is implemented, then the same would not exceed 30% of the income generated in the Temple itself. The Executive Officer of the Temple, who is on deputation from the Board, has also recommended the same by Ext.P4.

¶43

In similar situations, Special Grade

¶44

Temples, who had approached this Court, have been granted the said benefit. The employees of the Madhur Temple at Kasaragod were extended similar benefit by a judgment of this Court, which was challenged in appeal. Ext.P6 is the judgment of the Division Bench, which affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Following the same, Ext.P5 judgment was passed, by a learned Single Judge of this court with respect to Alathiyoor Perumthrikkovil Devaswom, Zamorin Raja Central Devaswom and Thali Devaswom, all of which were also Special Grade

¶45

W.P.(C) No.31026 of 2015-C

¶46

¶47

Temples.

¶48

In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to treat the petitioners herein differently, who also are employed in a Special Grade Temple, having sufficient income to bear the financial liability arising from the revision in pay. The Government also does not have any financial liability with respect to such revision effected, since the Temple shoulders the additional liability from its own income. The Government or the Board cannot raise a dispute since the Board has been constituted only as a regulatory measure, so as to ensure that the offerings of the public to the deity is not squandered away. Here the liability is incurred only for the benefit of the temple employees, conferring them with better emoluments. They, are the persons who

¶49

W.P.(C) No.31026 of 2015-C

¶50

¶51

are employed to look after, particularly,the affairs of the deity; a perpetual minor and generally,the needs of the devotees, who constitute the public.

¶52

In such circumstance, it is declared that Ext.P1 benefit shall be extended to the employees of the 3^rd respondent Temple also. The 2^nd respondent shall pass orders extending such benefits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶53

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶56

//True Copy//

¶57

P.A. to Judge.

¶58

sp/06/01/16

A.P.Vasanthakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Vasanthakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy Mathew Vs P.P.Benny

P U Sreejith (Minor)Rep by His Father P a Unnikrishnan Vs Smt Lalithakumari

Rahul A.V Vs the District Educational Officer

P.K.Kharim Vs Kerala State Warehousing

Biju Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Thomas Vs the Managing Director