Partly allowed

Ratheesh v. the Secretary

Kerala HC2 Nov 2021DBP/49/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed representations of hereditary temple employees disputing non-permanent postings. It directed the Devaswom Board to reconsider claims for permanent appointment under Karayma rights by issuing fresh notices within three months, setting aside prior rejection orders affecting succession rights.

What did the court decide?

Pending applications by petitioners were treated as active claims; orders dated 02.05.2019 were quashed; Devaswom Board directed to consider claims with notice and pass orders within three months.

Ratheesh Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

DBP NO. 48 OF 2020

¶8

IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD – CDB REPORT NO.37/2020 IN COMPLAINT NOS.14/2020 AND 87/2020 – MATTER

¶9

RELATED TO THE APPOINTMENT AS KAZHAKOM IN THE PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM KEEZHEDAM SREE OTITTAKOOTALA TEMPLE – CLAIM MADE BY THE PETITIONER SINCE HIS LATE FATHER WAS A HEREDITARY EMPLOYEE- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS

¶10

INITIATED - REG.

¶11

PETITIONER:

¶12

DEEPESH K.R, KALATHIL AMPALAPATT HOUSE, KANIYORKODE P. O.,THIRUVILWAMALA,THRISSUR

¶13

SUO MOTO

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

THE SECRETARY,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶16

BY ADV. K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, ALONG WITH DBP NO.49/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶25

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶26

DBP NO. 49 OF 2020

¶27

IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD – CDB REPORT NO.37/2020 IN COMPLAINT NO.87A OF 2020 – MATTER RELATED TO THE APPOINTMENT AS KAZHAKOM IN THE PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM KEEZHEDAM SREE ODITTAKOOTALA TEMPLE – CLAIM MADE

¶28

BY THE PETITIONER CONSIDERING THE SAME AS A PERMANENT POST – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶29

PETITIONER:

¶30

RATHEESH, ARCHTECH SURVEYORS, PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶31

SUO MOTU

¶32

RESPONDENT:

¶33

THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶34

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, ALONG WITH DBP.48/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

-3-

¶36

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶42

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶43

DBP NO. 83 OF 2019

¶44

IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD – CDB REPORT

¶45

NO.63/2019 IN COMPLAINT NO.98/19-REQUEST OF

¶46

SRI.P.N.RAJEEV MARAR, EMPLOYEE WORKING ON DAILY WAGES IN PALLIMANNA TEMPLE UNDER UHRALLIKAVU DEVASWOM AVAILING PERMANANT APPOINTMENT IN THE POST OF ADIYANTHARAM MARARSUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶47

PETITIONER:

¶48

P.N.RAJEEV MARAR,AGED 53 YEARS PALLIMANA MARATH HOUSE,KANJIRAKODE P. O., WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680 590

¶49

BY ADVS.SMT. SUJINI S.

¶50

RESPONDENTS:

¶51

THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶52

BY ADV SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶53

SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN-AMICUS CURIAE

¶54

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, ALONG WITH DBP.48/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

-4-

¶56

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶60

¶61

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶62

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶63

WP(C) NO. 4290 OF 2021

¶64

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB

¶65

PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶66

PETITIONER:

¶67

RAJEEVAN.P.N.@ P.N.RAJEEV MARAR @ P.N.RAJEEV KUMAR

¶68

AGED 55 YEARS

¶69

S/O. LATE NARAYANA MARAR., RESIDING AT PALLIMANA MARATH HOUSE, KUMBALANGAD, KANNIRAKODE P.O., THRISSUR 680 590

¶70

BY ADV S.SUJINI

¶71

RESPONDENTS:

¶72

1 SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR 680 001

¶73

2 DEVASWOM OFFICER,KEEZHEDAM PALLIMANA SHIVA KSHETHRAM, UTHRALIKAVU DEVASWAM OFFICE, UTHRALIKKAVU 680 590

¶74

3 SECRETARY,KERALA DEVASWAM RECRUITMENT BOARD, THIRUVATHAMKUR DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, M.G ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶75

R1 BY SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC

¶76

-5-

¶77

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶78

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, ALONG WITH DBP.48/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶79

FOLLOWING:

¶80

-6-

¶81

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶82

ORDER/JUDGMENT

¶83

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶84

DBP Nos.48 and 49 of 2020:- These DBPs are registered based on CDB Report No.37 of 2020 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint Nos.14/2020 and 81/2020 relating to the appointment as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple. The claim made by Sri.Deepesh K.R., who is the complainant in those complaints, is that he is entitled for appointment as Kazhakom in the temple in question, since his father K.A. Ramachandran was a hereditary employee of that temple. In CDB Report No.37 of 2020, the learned Ombudsman has also considered Complaint No.87A of 2020, another complaint submitted by Sri.Ratheesh, wherein it is stated that after the death of K.A. Ramachandran in the year 2013, Sri.Deepesh was working as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple. For the last seven years, Deepesh has not chosen to produce any documents to prove Karayma right and as such that post was treated as permanent post, for making appointment through the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board.

¶85

-7-

¶86

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶87

On 23.07.2021, when DBP Nos.48 and 49 of 2020

¶88

came up for consideration, this Court made it clear that the pendency of the captioned DBPs will not be an impediment in the Cochin Devaswom Board considering the issue whether the petitioner in D.B.P.No.48 of 2020 is entitled to get appointment as hereditary employee against the post of Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple. The order of this Court dated 23.07.2021 reads thus;

¶89

“It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board (CDB) that the petitioner in DBP.No.48 of 2020 Sri.Deepesh.K.R. is presently employed on daily wage basis as kazhakam. The question to be decided on his representation is whether he is entitled to get appointment against the post recognising his hereditary right. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the issue will be considered by CDB if permitted by this Court. We are of the considered view that the issue whether the petitioner in DBP.No.48 of 2020 is entitled to get posting as hereditary employee against the post of kazhakam is a matter tobe decided at the first instance by the Cochin Devaswom Board. In such circumstances, we make it clear that pendency of the captioned DBPs will not be an impediment for such consideration, in accordance with law. In other words, CDB is permitted

¶90

-8-

¶91

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶92

to take up the representation and consider that issue pending consideration of the captioned DBPs. The question whether it is a vacancy which is liable to be reported to the Recruitment Board essentially would depend upon the decision on the aforesaid issue. In such circumstances, the said issue may be considered by the CDB expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks. Upon taking such decision on the aforesaid issue copy of the order pending a decision shall be produced before the Court.”

¶93

Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 23.07.2021, the Special Devaswom Commissioner has issued Annexure R1(A) guidelines regarding the service conditions of karayma employees in various temples under Cochin Devaswom Board, which came into force with effect from 17.09.2021 and also Annexure R1(B) order dated 13.10.2021, whereby the Special Devaswom Commissioner has directed Deepesh K.R. to produce necessary documents in order to prove his claim for appointment as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple, under Karayma right. He is directed to submit necessary application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom along with supporting documents to prove his Karayma right.

¶94

-9-

¶95

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶96

In the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board, which is one dated 25.10.2021, it is stated that by Annexure R1(B) order, Sri.Deepesh K.R. is directed to submit necessary documents before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, in order to consider his request for appointment as Kazhakom, in terms of Annexure R1(A) guidelines formulated by the Board and that, necessary orders will be passed in terms of that guidelines, immediately on receipt of the documents.

¶97

DBP No.83 of 2019 & W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2021:-

¶98

DBP No.83 of 2019 is registered based on CDB Report No.63 of 2019 in Complaint No.98/19 of the learned Ombudsman. The said complaint was made by P.N. Rajeev Marar, the petitioner in D.B.P.No.83 of 2019, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2021, claiming appointment in Pallimanna Temple under Uthralikkavu Devaswom in Thiruvallamala Group as Poojakottu Adiyantharam. He is presently employed on daily wages as Adiyantharam Marar in that temple, since 2008 on a daily wages of Rs.90/-. His father Late Sreenarayana Marar was a hereditary employee of that temple, who was conducting Padikottu Adiyantharam. In CDB

¶99

-10-

¶100

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶101

Report No.63 of 2019, the learned Ombudsman observed that, as per Section 7(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, all the interest in Thavazhi or Tharavadu governed by Marumakkathazham Law would be devolved by testamentary or intestate, as the case may be, under the Hindu Succession Act, and not according to Marumakkathazham Law. In W.P. (C)No.4290 of 2021, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 proceedings dated 02.05.2019 of the 1^st respondent Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby his request for employment on permanent basis in the temple in question under Karayma right stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to regularise his employment, by giving him all the benefits due, right from 2002 onwards; a declaration that the reasons stated by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P5 to reject the claim put forward by the petitioner is not tenable; and a declaration that the petitioner is a successorin-interest as per Section 7(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and he is eligible to be regularized and appointed permanently as Poojakottu Adiyantharam.

¶102

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶103

-11-

¶104

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶105

Pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated 23.07.2021 in D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020, the Special Devaswom Commissioner has issued Annexure R1(A) guidelines regarding the service conditions of karayma employees in various temples under Cochin Devaswom Board. Annexure R1(A) guidelines came into force with effect from 17.09.2021. By Annexure R1(B) order dated 13.10.2021, the Special Devaswom Commissioner has directed Deepesh K.R., the petitioner in D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020, to produce necessary documents in order to prove his claim for appointment as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple, under Karayma right.

¶106

Insofar as the petitioner in D.B.P.No.83 of 2019, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2021 is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that, in view of Annexure R1(A) guidelines, the Cochin Devaswom Board shall reconsider his claim for appointment as Poojakottu Adiyantharam, under Karayma right, with notice to the petitioner, in case he submits necessary application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, along with

¶107

-12-

¶108

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶109

supporting documents. The entitlement of the petitioner to make such claim will also be reconsidered, after considering the legal contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶110

In such circumstances, D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020 are disposed of by directing the petitioner in D.B.P.No.48 of 2020 to make a proper application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, along with necessary documents, claiming appointment as Kazhakom in Parakkottukavu Devaswom, Keezhedam Sree Odittakootala Temple, under Karayma right, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in which event, the competent authority in Cochin Devaswom Board shall consider that request, strictly in terms of Annexure R1(A) guidelines, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application.

¶111

D.B.P.No.83 of 2019 and W.P.(C)No.4290 of 2021 are disposed of by setting aside Ext.P5 order dated 02.05.2019 of the Secretary of Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner shall

¶112

-13-

¶113

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶114

submit a proper application before the Devaswom Officer, Parakkottukavu Devaswom, along with necessary documents, claiming appointment as Poojakottu Adiyantharam in Pallimanna Temple under Uthralikkavu Devaswom, under Karayma right, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in which event, the competent authority in Cochin Devaswom Board shall consider that request, strictly in terms of Annexure R1(A) guidelines in D.B.P.Nos.48 and 49 of 2020, with notice to the petitioner and

¶115

after affording him an opportunity of being heard and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. The entitlement of the petitioner to make such claim will also be reconsidered, after considering the legal contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶116

Sd/-

¶117

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶118

Sd/-

¶119

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶120

AV/3/11

¶121

-14-

¶122

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶123

In paragraph 1 of the Order/Judgment dtd.2/11/2021, 'Complaint Nos 14/2020 and 81/2020' is corrected as 'Complaint Nos. 14/2020 and 87/2020' and in paragraph 5 of the order at page 9 the word 'Thiruvallamala Group' is corrected as 'Thiruvilwamala Group' vide order dated 22/11/2021 in DBP 48/2020.

¶124

Sd/DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶125

-15-

¶126

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶127

APPENDIX OF DBP No.48 of 2020

¶128

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :

¶129

ANNEUXRE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FORMULATED BY THE RESPONDENT REGARDING THE SERVICE CONDITIONS OF KARAYMA EMPLOYEES

¶130

ANNEUXRE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER ON M4.10620/2014 DATED 13.10.2021 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

¶131

-16-

¶132

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶133

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4290/2021

¶134

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶135

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDEINTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING HIS NAME AS P.N RAJEEV KUMAR EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE PETITIOENR'S NAME AS RAJEEVAN P.N EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT AFFIDAVIT DATED 09-06-2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BY THE SIBINGS/BROTHERS OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M 7412/2017 DATED 28-03-2018 IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M4 7412/2017 DATED 04-10-2018 IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M4.7412/2017 DATED 02-05-2019, IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2705-2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. M4 7412/2017 DATED 25-06-2019 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNCIATION NO. M4 7412/2017 DATED 16-11-2019 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶136

-17-

¶137

DBP No.48 of 2020 & con.cases

¶138

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CDB REPORT NO. 63/2019 IN COMPLAINT NO. 98/2019 DATED 27-11-2019 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COP[Y OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN DBP NO. 83/2019 PENDING BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶139

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 27-07-2020 RECEIVED FROM THE DEVASWOM OFFICER, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF SMT. SREELATHA W/O. LATE KESAVAN NAMBISAN

¶140

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29-072020 RECEIVED FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF SRI M ANIL, S/O. LATE M. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPAD AS MELSANTHI OF VILVADRINATHA KSHETHRAM

Ratheesh v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh v. the Secretary

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

Grace Savithri Vs Adlein Pushpaveni

Mary Anitha Latha Vs Adlein Pushpaveni

Janamma Vs the Branch Manager, Uco Bank Limited

Rajeevan.P.N.@ P.N.Rajeev Marar @ P.N.Rajeev Kumar Vs Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board

Suo Motu Vs the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board-Tdb

Deepesh K.R Vs the Secretary