Dismissed

G.Raghavendra Kedilaya v. Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple

Kerala HC16 Mar 2018WP(C)/3101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order posting him as Keezhsanthi No.4 and re-posting a senior hereditary respondent as No.1. Court examined service rules defining temple duties and dismissed the petition, holding the executive officer did not illegally interfere with petitioner's service conditions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition against the order dated 22.01.2018 directed to dismiss the petition and no interference with the order.

G.Raghavendra Kedilaya Vs Madhur Sree… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

G.RAGHAVENDRA KEDILAYA, S/O. GANGADHARA KEDILAYA, AGED 44 YEARS, EMPLOYED AS KEEZHSANTHI NO.I, MATHUR SREE MADANANTHESWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 17/791,GANESHAVASYAM, POST MATHUR, KASARAGOD 671 124.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MATHUR SREE MADANANTHESWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE, P.O MATHUR, KASARAGOD 671 124

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KASARAGOD DIVISION, P.O NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD 673 572.

¶12

3. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O ERANHIPALAM KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶13

4. SHRI M. VENKITA KRISHNA KALLOORAYA, S/O. LATE VASUDEVA KALLURAYA, AGED 6 YEARS, MELINAMANE, P.O MADHUR, KASARAOD 671 124.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, S.C R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

26.03.2018

¶18

WP(C).No. 3101 of 2018 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN UTHARADESAM DAILY DATED 14-11-2002. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-06-2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22-01-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NATURE OF DUTIES ATTACHED THE POSTS OF KEEZHSHANTHI-1 TO KEEZHSHANTHI-IV, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-08-2017 IN M.F.A NO. 142 OF 2013. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THIS PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 20.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT R(4)(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT REGISTER OF TEMPLE EMPLOYEES OF THE MADHUR SRI MADANANTHESHWARA VINAYAKA TEMPLE. EXHIBIT R(4)(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1ST RESPONDENT INITIATED AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT OF 4TH RESPONDENT ON 20.11.1998. EXHIBIT R(4)(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2018. //TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

26.03.2018

P.V.ASHA J.

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

¶29

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶30

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2018

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner, who has been working as Keezhsanthi No.1 at Mathur Sree Madhanantheswara Vinayaka Temple, Kasaragod, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order dated 22.01.2018 by which he was directed to work as Keezhsanthi No.4 and the 4^th respondent and another were posted as Keezhsanthi Nos.1 and 2 respectively.

¶33

According to the petitioner, he was

¶34

appointed on the basis of Ext.P1 notification by which applications were invited for the post of Keezhsanthi from among persons who were having qualification in Manthra, Thanthra and Pooja Vidhi. Based on his application pursuant to that notification he was appointed in the Temple as Keezhsanthi No.1, as per Ext.P2 order dated 27.06.2003, in the scale of pay of Rs.625-1225. Though the appointment was for a period

¶35

of 180 days from the date of joining duty, he continued. It is stated that he was regularly

¶36

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶37

¶38

appointed with effect from 25.06.2010. Petitioner submits that all along he had been working as Keezhsanthi No.1 and his duties were always confined to those involving Manthra, Thanthra and Pooja Vidhi. The duties of each of the Keezhsanthis are given in Ext.P4. The duties of Keezhsanthi No. 1 provided in Ext.P4 read as follows:

¶39

Keeshanthi 1: They are requested to help the Melshanthi in all aspects in the daily Poojas. Render all duties to Annual festival and Periodical Festivals time as mentioned in the Approved Dittam. Anyhow the duties are approximately summarized herebelow.

¶40

They have to reach the Temple by 5.00 A.M. and open all Sub Temples and light the lamps there. They have to perform morning pooja by making Naivedyam (Offering) to all Sub Temples. He has assist in preparing Pachappa and offer to Lord Vinayaka. He has to perform Prayers for all Poojas including Udayastamanapooja up to 12 O’clock. He has to do Thanthra for Shivaly and Sreeboothabali. He has assist in the preparation of Panchakajaya and packing, it is to be reached to the distribution counter. He has to do Durganamaskarapooja, Sathyanarayanapooja, Sathyavinayakapooja and Sankastahara Chathurthipooja on Sankasti day.

¶41

He has to open all Sub Temples in the evening at 5.30 P.M. and closed them after night pooja. He has to assist in lamping Karthikapooja Dali and open the door inside. He has to Co operate in Rudrabhisheka, Navaka, Arathi, Archana, Hannukai, packing Panchamrutha etc. They have to engage extra hands for their assistance during Festival and other days. They have to engage proper substitute during "ashoucha " time and substitute has to sign in the leave

¶42

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶43

¶44

application because unauthorised persons should not be allowed to enter the Temple inside.

¶45

Over and above the usual duties they are bound to render certain duties instructed from office on special occasions in the best interest of the Temple. Non rendering of service in any manner will affect the reputation of temple including good carrier and conduct in the temple duty time. The leave applications are to be submitted in advance by showing proper reasons. All employees are requested to sign in the attendance register daily and regularly.

¶46

At the same time, the duties of Keezhsanthi

¶47

No.IV are the following:

¶48

Keeshanthi IV : Come to the Temple 8.30 A.M. preparing daily Nivedyam and Payasam for Noon Mahapooja. Modaka for seva, One sers rice payasam if seva comes, preparation of Panchakajayam and packing.

¶49

Preparing Nivedyam for Noon meals In the Agrasala as instructed from the office. Decoration of Idol, carrying the Idol, Alankara of Idol during the Annual Festival. Packing of Modaka, Payasa, Shivapooja prasadam in the temple. Distribution of the Brahmasva prasadam in the Noon after Noonmahapooja. Assist in preparation of Panchakajaya, packing and bringing to the distribution counter in the Temple. All duties connected with the Annual festival and Periodical festivals as shown in the approved dittam. Any other duties on special occasions as instructed by the office in the best interest of the Temple.

¶50

Petitioner submits that he is not conversant

¶51

with any of the duties attached to the post of Keezhsanthi No.4 and ever since he joined duty, he did

¶52

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶53

¶54

only the duties of Keezhsanthi No.1 as provided in Ext.P4. According to him, the order Ext.P3 is issued consequent to Ext.P5 judgment and that judgment does not direct that 4^th respondent shall be posted as Keezhsanthi or that the petitioner should be displaced. According to petitioner, if at all 4^th respondent was to be posted as Keezhsanthi, the Executive Officer should have arranged the duties in such a way that the petitioner was allotted the duties involving manthra and thanthra without sending him for preparation of nivedyams or meals; or else other arrangements have been made for doing the work of Keezhsanthi No.4.

¶55

The 4^th respondent is a hereditary

¶56

Keeshsanthi who commenced service in the Temple at the age of 12 and has been working in the Temple from 05.11.1956 onwards. When he attained the age of 65 years, he was relieved on 20.11.1998 as per Ext.R4(a) order. Thereupon he along with another, filed O.S.No.26 of 1999 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod seeking a declaration that he is entitled to continue as Keezhsanthi without any age

¶57

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶58

¶59

limit, as he is a hereditary Keezhsanthi of the Temple. The suit was decreed declaring his hereditary

¶60

right as per judgment dated 31.08.2013 and that judgment was affirmed in Ext.P5 judgment dated 23.08.2017. Hereditary santhis/ Melasanthis/ keezhsanthis, can continue until they themselves vacate the post. Producing the schedule of establishment Ext.R4(a), the 4^th respondent has stated that he was Keezhsanthi No.1 before he was relieved at the age of 65 as per Ext.R4(b). Ext.P3 order was issued consequent to Ext.P5 judgment. Pointing out that his hereditary status has been declared, 4^th respondent claims that he is entitled to be posted back in the post in which he was working.

¶61

The contention of the petitioner is that in order to implement the judgment, the petitioner cannot be shifted from Keezhsanthi No.1 to Keezhsanthi No.4, i.e., to a post the duties of which he has never performed and is unable to perform. It is also his case that he was not impleaded in the suit and the 4^th respondent did not have any case against him. According to him, the 4^th respondent was very much

¶62

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶63

¶64

aware of the fact that petitioner was working as Keezhsanthi No.1 from 2003 onwards. He did not choose to raise any objection against the petitioner's continuance or seek any relief from appropriate authorities or even the court as against the petitioner. This writ petition was filed in the above circumstances, challenging Ext.P3 order.

¶65

The Executive Officer has also filed counter affidavits. According to the Executive Officer, all the Keezhsanthis in the Temple are having the same scale of pay and all these posts are inter changeable and there is no difference in the Grade or scale of pay as far as the Keezhsanthis Nos.1 to 4 in the Temple are concerned. It is only for work arrangement the duties are assigned to each of them. Ext.P3 order was passed pursuant to the Ext.P5 judgment, when the 4^th respondent, a senior hand had to be accommodated. It is stated that the 4^th respondent is 86 years old and he had been working as Keezhsanthi No.1.

¶66

According to the 4^th respondent, petitioner

¶67

cannot insist that he should be allowed to continue as Keezhsanthi No.1 and the 4^th respondent, who was

¶68

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶69

¶70

Keezhsanthi No.1 is re-posted in implementation of the judgment of the civil court. It is pointed out that there is no Scheme governing the service conditions of employees of the Temple. Rules do not provide for allocation of the duties to different Santhis. Hence, it would be the discretion of the Executive Officer of the Temple to allot duties to the different Keezhsanthis as well as other employees of the Temple.

¶71

I had Sri. Sajith Kumar, the learned Counsel

¶72

for the petitioner; Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, Sri. Mohan C. Menon for 1^st respondent; Smt. Radhika for respondents 2 and 3.

¶73

Under the Rules framed under Section 100(2) (y), Rule 4(2), provides that except in the case of a hereditary officer or servant, no person may be appointed to or hold any office unless he is not less than eighteen and not more than sixty-five years of age.

¶74

The duties of Ulthurai servants are provided in Rule 2(a), which reads as follows:

¶75

“2(a) Ulthurai servant means and includes a servant whose duties relate mainly to the

¶76

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶77

¶78

performance, or rendering assistance in the performance, of pooja, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of Mantras, Vedas, Prabandas, Thevarams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance or recitation”

¶79

Therefore, it is clear that the duties of

¶80

any Keezhsanthi would include the services to the deity by way of performance or assisting performance of poojas as well as all services and all duties connected with such performance. Preparation of Nivedyams are also service to deity in addition to performance of poojas and recital of Mantras, Vedas, Prabandas, Thevarams and other invocations.

¶81

Petitioner's contention on the basis of

¶82

Ext.P1 notification that he has to be allowed to continue as Keezhsanthi No.1 which involves the duties of Manthra, Thanthra and Pooja Vidhi, do not have any basis as long as there is no provision in any of the Rules which says that there should be a Keezhsanthi No.1 and when such person is appointed, he should be allotted duties involving the Manthra, Thanthra and Pooja Vidhi alone. In fact, the duties of all the Keezhsanthis involves Manthra, Thanthra and Pooja Vidhi. Preparation of Nivedyams are the duties of all

¶83

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶84

¶85

Keezhsanthis. There is division of workload among the 4 persons; the work allotment, is to be done by the Executive Officer. Even otherwise, when the 4^th respondent, who was working as Keezhsanthi No.I is reposted, petitioner cannot insist that he should be allowed to continue as Keezhsanthi No.I or that he cannot perform any duties which are allotted to Keezhsanthi No.4 in Ext.P3.

¶86

The fact that petitioner was not impleaded in the case filed by the 4^th respondent or that he did not seek any relief against the petitioner and therefore he cannot be shifted is not sustainable, as long as the 4^th respondent was only seeking a declaration of his hereditary right. Moreover, it can be seen from Exts.P1 and P2 that petitioner's appointment based on Ext.P1 was only for a period of 179 days, though he continued thereafter without any break and it culminated in his regularization in the year 2010. Petitioner has a case that he was posted as Keezhsanthi No.1 and he continued as such when the other Santhis senior to him were working in the Temple. However the fact that 4^th respondent was

¶87

W.P.(C).No.3101 of 2018

¶88

¶89

also Keezhsanthi No.1 cannot be disputed as it is evident from Exts.R4(a) and (b). Moreover there is no rule which prohibits work allotment by the Executive Officer. At the time when the 4^th respondent was relieved, he was working as Keezhsanthi No.1, as can be seen from Ext.R4(b). When the Executive Officer has to implement Ext.P5 judgment, he has to re-post the 4^th respondent. Therefore the action of the Executive Officer, re-posting the 4^th respondent in the position from which he was relieved cannot be said to be illegal or one which warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶90

In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 order and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶91

Sd/-

¶92

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶93

G.Raghavendra Kedilaya v. Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Raghavendra Kedilaya v. Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple

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

Kailas Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Hazeena M.N. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

John Galbret D. Netto Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, A.L.P. School Vs a. Shajahan

The Manager, A.K.M.L.P. School Vs a. Shajahan

Sreesanpillai K.R. Vs State of Kerala