Allowed

C.Narayanan Namboothiri v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WP(C)/12582/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees of temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board challenged the Government's Rs.20 lakh annual-income ceiling on disbursal of the Management Fund, which denied them their eligible salary. The High Court held the cap arbitrary and discriminatory, and directed the Government and the Board to pay full eligible salary, along with arrears.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay eligible salary to the petitioners as per the pay fixation orders, with arrears within three months; in W.P.(C) No.12582/2021 salary to be paid from 01.08.2022 and arrears

C.Narayanan Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18537 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

E.SASIDHARAN EMBRANDIRI AGED 64 YEARS S/O. E. KRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI, KEEZ SANTHI, SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 688 BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE 673 006 4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOR TALUK, CHITTOR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 688 BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.M.K.SREEGESH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶12

21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.20360/2020 AND 12582/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

¶13

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶15

-2-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶20

WP(C) NO. 20360 OF 2020

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

1 P.P.VIMALA AGED 54 YEARS W/O MURALI MENON, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶23

2 P.A.MINI, W/O P. MADHAVAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶24

3 K. KOMALAM, W/O APPUKUTTAN, SWEEPER, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶25

4 K. SELVARAJAN, S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR (LATE), WATCHMAN, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶26

5 K. RADHA, W/O RAMAN, SWEEPER, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶27

6 A.V.SARASWATHY, W/O SASIDHARAN, KAZHAKAM, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶28

7 P.M. SREEDHARAN, S/O MANIYAN MARAR (LATE), VADHYAM, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶29

8 N. RAMAN,

¶30

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶31

-3-

¶32

S/O NARAYANAN (LATE), WATCHMAN, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶33

9 R. NARAYANAN EMBRANDIRI, S/O RAMACHANDRAN EMBRANDIRI (LATE), MELSANTHI, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶34

10 A. DEVI, W/O ACHUTHAN (LATE), RETIRED LOWER DIVISION CLERK, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶35

11 C. RAGHAVA PISHARODI, S/O NARAYANA PISHARODI, RETIRED THALAM, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶36

12 C.R.NARAYANAN, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, RETIRED KEEZHEDOM SANTHI, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶37

13 BALAN @ KESAVANKUTTY RETIRED KOBU, THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALLAVOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688

¶38

14 C. SANAL KUMAR, FORMER VADHYAM, PAZHAMCHERI, THENNILAPURAM, PALAKKAD-678 687 BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON

¶39

RESPONDENT/S:

¶40

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

¶41

2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, ERANHIPALAM P.O.KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶42

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

¶43

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, CHITTOOR P.O.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 688 BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD P.B.KRISHNAN

¶44

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶45

-4-

¶46

P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER

¶47

OTHER PRESENT:

¶48

SR.GP. PREMCHAND R. NAIR

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.18537/2020 AND 12582/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶51

-5-

¶52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶53

PRESENT

¶54

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶55

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶56

WP(C) NO. 12582 OF 2021

¶57

PETITIONER/S:

¶58

C.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 59 YEARS S/O. LATE C. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, WORKING AS MELSHANTHI, KARIVELLUR SHIVA TEMPLE, KARIVELLUR P. O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670521. BY ADV P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

¶59

RESPONDENT/S:

¶60

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM - 695 001. 2 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERANHIPALAM P. O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM P. O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001. 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KASARGOD DIVISION, NEELESWARAM P. O., KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM, DEVASWOMS, CHIRAKKAL P. O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 011.

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶62

21.02.2022, THE COURT ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C)Nos.18537 AND 20360/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶63

FOLLOWING:

¶64

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶65

-6-

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶69

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶70

WP(C) NO. 18537 OF 2020

¶71

PETITIONER/S:

¶72

E.SASIDHARAN EMBRANDIRI AGED 64 YEARS S/O. E. KRISHNAN EMBRANDIRI, KEEZ SANTHI, SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 688 BY ADV MOHAN C.MENON

¶73

RESPONDENT/S:

¶74

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

¶75

2 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, ERANHIPPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 006. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE 673 006

¶76

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE THRUPPALLAVOOR DEVASWOM, CHITTOR TALUK, CHITTOR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 688 BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.M.K.SREEGESH

¶77

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).20360/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶78

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶79

-7-

¶80

JUDGMENT

¶81

Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2022

¶82

(W.P.(C) Nos.18537 & 20360 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 12582 of 2021)

¶83

The pitiable service conditions and meagre

¶84

wages of the employees attached to the temples in Malabar, when compared to their counterparts in Travancore and Cochin, had compelled a Division Bench of this Court to register a suo motu case. The issue faced by the hapless employees were elaborately considered by the Division Bench in

¶85

In Re: Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area [AIR

¶86

1995 Ker. 172] , the concluding portion of which contains the following directions;

¶87

' 1. The Government of Kerala and the

¶88

Hindu Religious and Endowment Department shall prepare a scheme within a period of six months in respect of the temples in Malabar region including Kasaragod district under the administration and governance of the Department as well as other public temples which do not come under the purview of the Act;

¶89

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶90

-8-

¶91

2. First respondent shall fix the reasonable remuneration to be paid to the various employees in the temples in Malabar;

¶92

3. In fixing such reasonable remuneration the Government may take guidance from the scale of pay and other allowances paid to similar employees under the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards;

¶93

4. The scheme shall also take into account all public temples in Malabar irrespective of the fact whether they are big or small and whether they are under the administration of the Department or not;

¶94

5. Respondents 1 and 2 shall find out the ways and means to raise the income of the temples for the purpose of such payment;

¶95

6. The first respondent shall prepare the final annuity statements in respect of the temples within a period of one year and the annuity on that basis shall be paid without further delay;

¶96

7. The first respondent shall consider the requirement or revision of annuity periodically in accordance with the rise in price of the commodities and the annuity should be revised on that basis;

¶97

8. First respondent shall ensure

¶98

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶99

-9-

¶100

utilisation of the income which they are getting from the forest lands owned by the Devaswom in Malabar which got vested in the Government under Section 3(1) of the Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act;

¶101

9. The first respondent shall, though not liable to pay such income to the owners to whom the lands belonged, pool the income in a common fund to be utilised for the temples in Malabar including the wages payable to the employees thereunder:

¶102

10. The scheme to be framed by the first respondent shall be implemented by the second respondent within a period of one year from this date:

¶103

11. The order for payment of reasonable wages to the temple employees shall come into operation from 1st January, 1995.

¶104

12. In view of our finding that inequality is writ large on the face of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in its application to the former Malabar District, the Act is likely to suffer a serious and successful challenge in case that inequality is not removed by appropriate legislation. We grant a period of one year for this purpose.

¶105

13. We direct the Government to consider

¶106

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶107

the formation of a Board for the temples in Malabar and a unified Board for all the regions viz. Travancore, Cochin and Malabar on the lines of the

¶108

recommendations made by Kuttikrishna Menon Committee and Sankaran Nair Commission.'

¶109

directions, the Government issued G.O.(MS) No.415/96/RD dated 6.8.1996, unifying the scales of pay of the employees with effect from 01.01.1995. The Government also constituted a separate fund called the 'Malabar Devaswom Management Fund', as per G.O.(MS) No.481/95/Rd dated 10.10.1995. An initial amount of Rs.1 Crore was sanctioned for assisting the needy temples in paying salary to its employees. The amount was enhanced to Rs.3 Crores as per G.O.(MS) No.238/RD dated 15.7.2004.

¶110

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (the Act' for short) was amended by incorporating Section 7A providing for constitution of the

¶111

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶112

Malabar Devaswom Board. Section 80 provides for

¶113

grants from the Government and Section 81 empowers the Board to constitute a fund called 'the Malabar Deavaswom Fund'. Later, G.O.(MS) No.116/2009/RD dated 28.02.2009 was issued revising the salary of employees in temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board. Immediately thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(MS) No.433/2009/RD dated 2.11.2009, clarifying that the Malabar Devaswom Board should ensure that administrative expense of the Devaswoms do not exceed 50% of their annual income and if 50% is not sufficient to meet the administrative expense, the balance amount can be disbursed from the Management Fund. This was followed by G.O. (MS) No.258/2010/RD dated 01.07.2010, as per which only Devaswoms with less than Rs.5 lakhs annual income became entitled to receive the amount in excess of 50% of annual income for meeting their administrative expense. By

¶114

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶115

-12-

¶116

subsequent Government orders, the upper limit for receiving grant from the management fund towards administrative expense was raised to Rs.10 lakhs, 15 lakhs and 20 lakhs.

¶117

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18537 of 2020 is a Santhi in Sree Thruppallavoor Devaswom in Palakkad District, which is a B Grade Devaswom and a notified temple under the Act with annual income of more than Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20360 of 2020 are the serving and retired employees of the same Devaswom. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12582 of 2021 is the Melsanthi of Karivellur Siva Temple, which is a B Grade Temple under Chirakkal Kovilakom Devaswom.

¶118

The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-payment of their eligible salary, due to the upper limit of Rs.20 lakhs prescribed as eligibility for receiving management fund towards administrative expense incurred in excess of 50% of the annual income. The petitioners contend that, all

¶119

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶120

-13-

¶121

throughout, the employees of the temples in Malabar area have been discriminated against on the premise that the erstwhile Malabar area was part of Madras State and temples in Malabar was governed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926. The petitioners allege that the directions of the Division Bench in In Re:

¶122

Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area have not been complied in their letter and spirit. Moreover, whatever attempt is made to comply with the direction regarding payment of salary to the

¶123

employees is stultified by imposing an unconscionable condition that no financial aid

¶124

will be granted to temples with annual income of more than Rs.20 lakhs.

¶125

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶126

contended that the pay fixation/revision orders of the employees in the temples in Malabar was issued only after judicial intervention. The

¶127

benefit granted by the right hand is now being

¶128

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶129

taken away by the left, by incorporating an

¶130

income limit of Rs.20 lakhs. To prove this contention, learned Counsel pointed out that, as against an eligible total salary of

¶131

Rs.33,05,540/- due to the 11 employees in

¶132

Thruppallavoor Devaswom for the year 2019, only Rs.15,82,458/- has been paid. The total salary payable to the employees from 2011 to 2019 is Rs.2,53,62,632/as against which Rs.1,22,82,148/- alone is paid. Although the annual income of the temple is more than Rs.20 lakhs, the administrative expenses, which includes salary to the employees, expenditure toward repairs and renovation, conduct of festivals etc, is much more than 50% of the

¶133

income. The refusal on the part of the respondents to disburse any amount from the Management Fund for the expense incurred in excess of 50% of the annual income, has resulted in denial of salary to the petitioners.

¶134

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶135

-15-

¶136

Attention is drawn to the observations and the

¶137

findings in In Re: Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area, temples to point out that the Malabar Devaswom Board as well as the Government is duty bound to ensure payment of eligible salary to the employees. The Government cannot shirk away from this responsibility, by pleading financial stringency.

¶138

It is pointed out that the Division Bench had taken note that the income from the private forest belonging to the Devaswoms, which got vested with the Government on the introduction of the Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, is than sufficient to pay the salary due to the employees. Even otherwise, denial of salary to the employees in Malabar, while paying more salary to the employees in Travancore and Cochin for the same work, militates against the well settled principle of equal pay for equal work.

¶139

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶140

-16-

¶141

Adv.Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing

¶142

Counsel for the Devaswom Board, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, insofar as they have not challenged the first order by which a limit was prescribed for grant of aid to Devaswoms from the Management Fund. The further contention is that there is clear distinction between the management and functioning of temples in Malabar and the Travancore/Cochin. The temples in Malabar belongs to families/trusts and the primary responsibility of maintaining the temple and paying salary is with the trust. Even though supervisory powers are vested with the Malabar Devaswom Board under the Act, only Section 76 provides for contribution to the Management Fund, that too limited to temples with income above

¶143

the prescribed limit. As such, the Management Fund is almost completely dependent on grant-inaid from the Government. In such circumstances,

¶144

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶145

-17-

¶146

the Government is fully justified in incorporating a condition that temples having income above Rs.20 lakhs will not be entitled for financial aid from the Management Fund.

¶147

Learned Government Pleader contended that the temples in Malabar belong to private trusts, the superintendence of which alone is entrusted with the Malabar Devaswom Board. Insofar as the Government has constituted a Management Fund and is providing grant-in-aid, the Government cannot be mulcted with the liability of paying salary to the employees of the temples.

¶148

In my considered opinion, in view of the specific findings and directions in In Re:

¶149

Temples in the erstwhile Malabar area , it is no longer open for the Malabar Devaswom Board or the Government to contend that they are not vested with the responsibility of paying salary to the temple employees. For answering the said

¶150

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶151

-18-

¶152

contention, one need only refer to the questions formulated by the Division Bench, which are as under;

¶153

“ Can a direction be given to the Trustees of the various temples to revise the pay scales of the employees? Has the Government any responsibility in the matter of providing living wages to the employees? Can the Government disclaim liability to make the requisite provisions for the wages of the employees? These are some of the pertinent questions which require answer in this original petition.”

¶154

For deciding the above questions, the Division

¶155

Bench relied on the Apex Court decision in All India Imam Organsation v. Union of India [(1999)

¶156

3 SCC 584], which was rendered in the context of the Wakf Act. The questions are seen answered at paragraphs 27 to 30 of the judgment extracted hereunder;

¶157

''27. The Preamble to the Wakf Act, 1954 (Act 29/1954) states that it is an Act to provide for the better administration and supervision of the Wakfs. In the statement

¶158

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶159

-19-

¶160

of objects and. reasons it is mentioned that the management of Wakfs, though it vests immediately in a Mutawalli, is a subject which requires the supervision of the State. The need for supervision has been felt and in addition to various enactments dealing with the subject of charitable: endowments, the Musalman Wakf Act of 1923 was enacted for the whole of India. Enactments were introduced in some of the States also. The working of these Acts has brought out the necessity of amendments. Some of the States had no Act at all for the purpose. The necessity of a uniform and consolidated legislation resulted in the passing of the Wakf Act, 1954. The Preamble to the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 applicable to the Malabar Region of the State of Kerala states that it is an Act to provide for the better administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the State of Madras of which Malabar region including the present Kasaragod District was a part then. The powers and duties of the Commissioner are embodied in Section 20 of the Act. Section 23 enjoins a duty on the Trustee Board to obey all lawful orders issued by the Government, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Area Committee

¶161

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶162

-20-

¶163

of the Assistant Commissioner. The Trustees are bound to furnish to the Commissioner such accounts, returns, reports or other information relating to the administration of the institution. The trustee of a religious institution is authorised to incur expenditure as provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of that section stipulates that the trustee shall have due regard to such general or special instruction as may be given by the Commissioner or in the case of an institution over which an Area Committee has jurisdiction also by such Committee in incurring such expenditure. The Commissioner is also given powers under Section 31 of the Act to declare that after satisfying adequately the purposes of the religious institution, the surplus, if any, may be appropriated to religious, educational or charitable purposes. Under Section 45 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner in the case of any religious institution over which an area committee has jurisdiction and the Commissioner in the case of any other religious institution is given the power to suspend, remove or dismiss any hereditary or non-hereditary trustee or trustees thereof on the grounds mentioned therein. Though the trustee has got power to suspend, remove or

¶164

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶165

-21-

¶166

dismiss any of the servants or officebearers attached to a religious institution, the person so suspended, removed or dismissed is given a right under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 to appeal against that order to the Deputy Commissioner from whose decision an appeal lies to the Commissioner under Sub-section (3) of that section. The Deputy Commissioner is given power under Section 58 to settle a scheme for a religious institution when he has reason to believe that it is necessary in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution.

¶167

28. The provisions of the Act (1951) referred to in the foregoing paragraph indicate the wide powers conferred on the Department in the matter of management of temples and the Utilisation of the income therefrom. On a consideration of the various provisions contained in the Hindu Religious Endowment Act and the provisions in the Wakf Act, we see no difference in the matter of supervision and control of the religious institutions by the HR & CE Department (Department for short) and the Wakf Board in the case of Wakfs. On the other hand, the Preamble to the Hindu Religious Endowment Act suggests that the Act is intended not only for the better administration of the

¶168

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶169

-22-

¶170

Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions, but also their governance. By 'governance' is meant to rule with authority. The various provisions of the Act extracted in the foregoing paragraphs would indicate that the Department is the predominant force as far as the temples in Malabar are concerned. By looking at the purpose of the legislation and the various provisions contained therein we are of the firm view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Imam's case (AIR 1993 SC 2086) squarely apply to the present case also. The request of the counsel for respondents 3 to 16 for issue of directions similar to those issued by the Supreme Court in the Imam's case is therefore justified. We are of the view that similar directions are to be issued in this case also.

¶171

29. One of the contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader is that the grievances of the employees can be redressed only consistent with the financial position of the Government. Even in the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is mentioned that the problem can be solved only without spending any more Government funds. Government Pleader would therefore submit that a revision of the wages of the employees is not possible by utilising

¶172

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶173

-23-

¶174

Government funds. The Supreme Court in Imam's case (AIR 1993 SC 2086) has in very clear terms observed that it is the duty of the Wakf Boards to harness resources to pay the Imams who perform the most important duty, namely, of leading community prayer in a mosque. It is not therefore open either to the Government or to the Department to throw up their hands in despair and say that they are not possessed of sufficient funds to meet the demands of the temple employees. The Department which is authorised by the Act to administer and govern the endowments has thus a duty to harness the resources and to pay living wages as suggested by the Supreme Court in the Imam's case. 30. Even otherwise, the Government cannot disclaim the liability to pay living wages to the employees in view of the vesting of temple lands in the Government as on 1-11970 as well as the vesting of the private forests owned by the Devaswoms in the Malabar region. True, the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides for payment of annuity. It is in evidence that the final annuity statements had not so far been prepared. The vesting took place on 1-1-1970. Even two decades thereafter Government was not able to prepare the final annuity statement. The explanation of the Government appears to be

¶175

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶176

-24-

¶177

that particulars of records were not obtained from the various Land Tribunals, the Land Board and other authorities. The lands having been vested in the Government on 1-1-1970 and the Devaswoms deprived of their right to collect the rent from the tenants, Government owes a duty to get the annuity statement prepared and pay the annuity periodically without any delay whatsoever. The purpose for incorporating a provision in the Act for payment of annuity to the Devaswoms is defeated by such delay. It is no doubt pointed out that interim annuity statements are prepared and periodical payments are made. But that is hot sufficient to meet the expenses of the temples. Even the annuity payable under the Act will not be sufficient to meet the demands. One can visualise the situation when even that much amount is not being paid in time. Government do not appear to be serious on the aspect of preparing annuity statements or in the matter of providing annuity to the various temples which is not even the bare minimum that is required for the sustenance of the employees. We hope that 1st respondent would consider this matter with all seriousness and see that the final annuity statements with respect to the

¶178

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶179

Devaswoms in Malabar area are prepared without any further delay.''

¶180

Pertinently, the Division Bench refused

¶181

to accept the Government's contention regarding

¶182

lack of funds and made the following observations;

¶183

“37. Yet another contention advanced on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is that the temple funds are not made available to the Government and Government has thus no liability to make the payments. The learned Govt. Pleader has also attempted to highlight the difference between the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards and the temples in Malabar. As observed by the Supreme Court in the Imam's case (AIR 1993 SC 2086), the 2nd respondent has to harness the resources for making payments to the various employees in the temples in Malabar. Here itself it has to be mentioned that the direction for payment is applicable not only to the 1269 temples under the administration and governance of the Department, but also the other public temples numbering about 2000 which do not come within the purview of the Act.”

¶184

The court also observed that sufficient or more income for paying the salary is being generated

¶185

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶186

by the forests owned by the temples/trusts, which

¶187

had vested with the Government on the introduction of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. Based on the above findings, direction No.8 was issued to ensure utilisation of the income which Devaswoms are getting from the forests, that got vested in the Government under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. As per direction No.9, the Government is bound to pool that income into a common fund to be utilised for meeting the expenditure of the temples in Malabar, including the wages payable to the employees.

¶188

Therefore, the Government cannot shirk

¶189

away from its responsibility of ensuring payment of reasonable wages to the employees of the temples in Malabar by putting forth an excuse regarding lack of funds.

¶190

As rightly contended by the petitioners,

¶191

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶192

-27-

¶193

by bringing about a cap on disbursal of Management Fund, based on the annual income of Devaswoms, the Government is discriminating the employees based on a factor over which they have no control. Moreover, the impact of the order is to deny eligible salary to a group of employees. This irrationality of Governmental action is evident from the details available in the statement filed by the official respondents themselves. The details are extracted hereunder for easy reference;

¶194

Year	Assessable income	50% of Income	Salary Expense	Salary denied due to the cap of Rs.20 lakhs
2013	16,54, 703/-	8,27,232/-	26,94,236/-	18,67,004/-
2014	18,78,152/-	9,39,076/-	29,40,630/-	20,01,554/-
2015	9,93,247/-	9,96,624/-	29,16,753/-	19,20,129/-
2016	23,94,793/-	11,97,397/-	30,17,698/-	18,20,301/-
2017	25,69,134/-	12,84,367/-	30,26,867/-	17,42,500/-
2018	28,81,367/-	14,40,684/-	33,06,426/-	18,65,742/-
2019	28,24,590/-	14,12,295/-	33,05,540/-	18,93,245/-

¶195

It may also be contextually relevant to note that, as per Section 8B(2) of the Act, the Board has the power to fix and regulate the

¶196

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶197

-28-

¶198

service conditions and pay structure of the officers and employees of the temples from time to time and to supervise its implementation. Under Section 38, the Commissioner has to publish a list of religious institution, whose annual income is not less than the amount calculated for the purpose of levy of contribution under Section 76. As per Section 76(1), religious institution listed under Section 38 are bound to pay to the Board annual contribution not exceeding 5 per centum of its income. Section 80 provides for grant from the Government to the Board, for being utilised for the purpose of the Act and Section 81 provides for constitution of a fund called the Malabar Devaswom Fund. Section 81(c)(1) casts a duty on the Board to prepare a budget showing the probable receipts and disbursements of the temples, institutions and endowments under the management of the Board during the financial year. The above provisions give adequate

¶199

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶200

indication that under the scheme of the Act also,

¶201

the Government and the Board are bound to provide funds for the maintenance of temples and payment of salary to the employees.

¶202

The above discussion leads to the only

¶203

conclusion that, in view of the decision of the Division Bench and the provisions of the Act referred above, the salary of the petitioners is liable to be paid, despite the financial bar fixed by the Government orders. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay eligible salary to the petitioners as per the pay fixation orders. The necessary funds for this purpose shall be made available by the Government in terms of direction Nos.8 and 9 in In Re: Temples

¶204

in the erstwhile Malabar area . The arrears of salary due to the petitioners shall be paid within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶205

In W.P.(C) No.12582 of 2021, this Court has

¶206

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶207

-30-

¶208

already issued directions to disburse petitioner's salary as per Ext.P5 and P7 judgments. In the light of the directions in the afore judgments and the findings herein, entire eligible salary shall be paid to the petitioner from 01.08.2022 onwards and arrears of salary shall be disbursed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶213

-31-

¶214

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18537/2020

¶215

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) 116/2009/RD DATED 28-02-2009 PAY REVISION ORDER OF TEMPLE EMPLOYEES
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) 433/09/RD DATED 2-11-2009 ANOMALY RECTIFICATION PAY REVISION ORDER
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (RT) 277/19/R DATED 3-09-2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED RESPONSE DATED 19-03-2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM GANGA MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL (P) LTD.COIMBATORE
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THANKAM HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD.

¶216

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶217

-32-

¶218

¶219

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) 116/2009/RD DATED 28.2.2009 PAY REVISION ORDER OF TEMPLE EMP-LOYEES EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) 433/09/RD DATED 2.11.2009 ANOMALY RECTIFICATION PAY REVISION ORDER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (RT) 277/19/R DATED 3.9.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶220

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶221

-33-

¶222

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12582/2021

¶223

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	THE TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.116/2009 RD DATED 28.02.2009.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.H4.1665/09/M.D.B. DATED 18.03.2009 IMPLEMENTING EXT. P1, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (RELEVANT PAGE)
Exhibit	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO.6971/2015/ RD DATED 31.12.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J4 6265/10/MDB DATED 8.09.2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2020 IN WP(C) NO.18141/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 01.11.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P7	THE TRUE COPY JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2021 IN WP(C) NO.3551/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KERALA BANK DATED 14/09/2021
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASS BOOK ISSUED DATED 10/05/2017 OF DEVASWAM EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 11/12/2021
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM CHERUTHAZHAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK DATED 25/12/2021

¶224

W.P.(C) No.18537 /2020 & con.cases

¶225

-34-

C.Narayanan Namboothiri v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Narayanan Namboothiri 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

Mahesh G Vs the Union of India

K.I.Paulose Vs Kerala Water Authority

Sathyanandan M.G., Vs the Project Director

Joseph Froid Periara Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

A.K. Baburaj Vs the Bar Council of Kerala

A.Kishore Vs State of Kerala