Allowed

C.v.Viswanathan v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC19 Sept 2022WP(C)/9556/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition seeking revision of pay for a temple employee. The court held that a UD Clerk is entitled to the Manager/Supervisor scale (Rs.7480-11910) upon 16 years of service, rather than an intermediate post scale, following previous judgments.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P5, P6 and P7 set aside to the extent they deny promotion. Director to grant time bound higher grade in the scale of Rs.7480-11910 with effect from 04.05.2014 and pay all arrears within three

C.v.Viswanathan Vs Malabar Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 28TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.V.VISWANATHAN
AGED 41 YEARS

¶8

S/O. A.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, VAZHIPADU CLERK,
KALARIVATHIKKAL BHAGAVATI TEMPLE, CHIRRKKAL KOVILAKAM
GROUP, VALAPATTANAM PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
EZHOTHVALIYA VEEDU, CHIRAKALL PO, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶13

2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THALASSERI DIVISION, THALASSERI-670101.

¶15

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KALARIVATHIKKAL BHAGAVATI TEMPLE, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOMS, CHIRAKKAL PO, KANNUR DISTRICT-670011.

¶16

SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

19.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2022

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶24

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and P7 and quash the same.

¶25

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the revision of pay and grade promotion as Manager/Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs.7480/- - 11910/- and to release the monetary benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court”

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Board.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working as UD Clerk in the Kalarivathikkal Bhagavathi Temple, Valapattanam in Kannur District. He was appointed as Vazhipad Clerk in the Siveswaram temple under the Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom as evident from Exts.P1 and P2. It is submitted that his first higher grade was sanctioned as per Exts.P3 and

¶28

P4. The petitioner had been granted fixation in the scale of pay of

¶29

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

Rs.5650-8790. It is submitted that, as his second time bound higher grade, the petitioner was entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Manager/Supervisor which is the next higher post in the direct line of promotion to which the petitioner would entitled.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been granted second time bound higher grade only in the scale of pay of Rs.5930-9590 which is the scale of pay applicable to the post of Keezhsanthi in the temple. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Exts.P9 and P10 judgments to contend that this Court has, in an identical matter, considered the claim for grant of second time bound higher grade of UD Clerk in B-grade temples and had held that the grant of second time bound higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.59309590 was erroneous in view of the fact that the next higher scale of pay in respect of a UD Clerk in a temple is that of Supervisor/Temple Manager which is in the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 and that the intermediate posts of Santhi, Keezhsanthi and Melsanthi are posts to which the petitioner can have no aspiration for promotion and that

¶33

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

those posts cannot be treated as next higher posts in the direct line of promotion as for as a person holding the post of UD Clerk is concerned. It is submitted that this judgment has been considered by a Division Bench in Ext.P10 and the reasoning has also been upheld. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 as his second time bound higher grade and that Exts.P6 and P7, by which the request of the petitioner for placement in the scale of pay of Manager/Supervisor as his second time bound higher grade has been rejected, are liable to be set aside.

¶36

A detailed statement has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended therein that the petitioner while working as UD Clerk in a B-grade temple was granted grade promotion applicable to B-grade temples. It is stated that he was transferred and posted in an A-grade temple only on 01.06.2021. It is stated that the petitioner was drawing pay in the scale of UD Clerk in B-grade temple, that is, in the scale of pay of Rs.5650-8790. It is submitted that as his second time bound higher grade on completing 16 years of service with effect from

¶37

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

04.05.1998, he was granted the scale of pay of Rs.5930-9590 with effect from 04.05.2014 which was in accordance with the pay revision orders. It is contended that G.O.(MS).No.433/2009/RD dated 02.10.2009, which is produced as Annexure-R2(a), would show that the petitioner would be entitled to the next higher scale of pay as his 16 years time bound higher grade. It is contended that since the scale of pay of the petitioner in the post of UDC was Rs.5650-8790 as per Ext.P11 order, he would be entitled for fixation only in the scale of Rs.5930-9530 which is the next higher scale of pay. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner herein and of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.25146 of 2015 is not identical since that case involved a challenge to cancellation of grade promotion granted and that there is no such cancellation in the instant case. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that the petitioner now stands posted to an A-grade temple and that his 23 years higher grade is to be reckoned taking into account of his service in the A-grade temple.

¶40

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is admitted that the petitioner had entered service on 01.09.1995 at the

¶41

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

age of 15 and his date of entry has been reckoned by the Devaswom Board for the purpose of fixation of pay and for grant of pay revision benefits only as 04.05.1998, that is, the date on which he completed 18 years of age. The petitioner is, admittedly, entitled to three time bound higher grades on completion of 8, 16 and 23 years provided he stagnates in the post of UD Clerk. Earlier, the employees of the temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board were entitled to grade promotions on completion of 10 years and 18 years of service respectively. The petitioner had been placed in the scale of pay of Rs.5650-8790 as his first time bound higher grade on completion of 10 years of service with effect from 05.05.2008. The contention is that as second time bound higher grade on completion of 16 years, the petitioner was entitled only to be placed in the scale of pay of Rs.5930-9590.

¶44

Ext.P9 judgment was rendered in an almost identical circumstance in respect of UD Clerk working in a B-grade temple under the Malabar Devaswom Board and in respect of the same pay revision orders. This Court had held that the posts of Santhi, Keezhsanthi and Melsanthi, which are intermediate posts, are not posts

¶45

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶46

¶47

to which the petitioner can claim or seek promotion, being a UD Clerk. It was held that the post of Supervisor/Temple Manager in the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 is the next higher post in the direct line of promotion to which the petitioner would be eligible for appointment and that as such, the second time bound higher grade due to the petitioner is liable to be granted in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Manager/Supervisor, that is, the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910. This judgment stands upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P10 judgment as well. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the reasoning in Exts.P6 and P7 orders that the petitioner is eligible only for the scale of pay of Rs.5930-9590, which is the scale of pay of the post of Keezhsanthi in the temple is erroneous and cannot be counted.

¶48

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:

¶49

Exts.P5, P6 and P7 to the extent they deny time bound higher grade to the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner

¶50

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶51

¶52

time bound higher grade on completion of 16 years of service with

¶53

effect from 04.05.2014 in the scale of pay of Rs.7480-11910 and to

¶54

grant all arrears thereof within a period of three months from the date

¶55

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

NP

¶61

WP(C) NO. 9556 OF 2021

¶62

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9556/2021

¶64

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶65

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 2.5.2005.`	`SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED NIL.`	`SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND`	`ORDER SANCTIONING THE GRADE` `RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2009.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE TEMPLE W.E.F.`	`SCHEDULE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF` `1.3.2009 DATED 11.2.2015.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT WITH S` `2.6.2017.`	`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD` `ALARY SCHEDULE DATED`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT IN RP`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND` `4/2017 DATED APRIL, 2018.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`PROCEEDING OF THE 3RD` `1.8.2018.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `COMMISSIONER THRO` `12.2.2021.`	`REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE` `UGH PROPER CHANNEL ON`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.25146/2015 DAT`	`JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION` `ED 5.4.2019.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 11.1.2019.`	`JUDGMENT IN WA.2168/2019`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 28.2.2009 (`	`ORDER GO(MS) 116/2009/RD` `RELEVANT PAGE).`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 18.3.2009 I` `(RELEVANT PAGE).`	`CIRCULAR NO.H4/1665/2009/MDB` `SSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIB`	`ITS`
`ANNEXURE R2(a)`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF` `2.10.2009`	`G.O.(MS)NO.433/2009/RD DATED`
`ANNEXURE R2(b)`	`THE PHOTOCOPY OF` `NO.57/2021/RD DAT`	`GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS).` `ED 12.2.2021`

C.v.Viswanathan v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Viswanathan v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumesh T.S. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

Nubaisath C.H Vs Union of India

Leela L Vs Union of India

Samuel.K.J., Vs the State Police Chief

Sugesh S Vs Alappuzha Municipality

Shaji C.S., Vs Managing Director