Allowed

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut v. * v Haridas

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024WA/1717/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals against Single Judge judgments allowing hereditary-trustee-appointed Executive Officers and an Administrator to serve till 65. The Division Bench held such officers are governed by Section 100(2)(x)(ii) rules fixing retirement at 60, found forum shopping via withdrawal of statutory revision, and set aside the Single Bench judgments.

What did the court decide?

Judgments of the Single Bench set aside; writ appeals allowed.

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut Vs * v. Haridas — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

WA NO. 1717 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2023 IN WP(C) NO.21539 OF

¶9

2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT
AGED 98 YEARS
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, CENTRAL DEVASWOM OFFICE,
VALAYANAD, CHALAPPURAM. P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673002

¶12

BY ADVS.
A.C.VENUGOPAL
VIDHYA. A.C
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 4:

¶14

1* V. HARIDAS
AGED 63 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
S/O KESAVAN NAIR (LATE),
THRUPPANGOTTU SIVA TEMPLE, THRUPPANGOTTU.P.O.,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM,PIN-676108
*DECEASED

¶15

2V.M. CHANDRADAS
AGED 62 YEARS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SREE VALAYANAD DEVASWOM, VALAYANAD, KOMMERI.P.O.
KOZHIKKODE, PIN – 673007

¶16

3M. SASIDHARAN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALATHIYOOR PERUM THRUKKOVIL
DEVASWOM, POYILASSERY.P.O.,TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676102

¶17

4 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ELANJIPPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006

¶19

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶20

2

¶21

5 THE COMMISSIONER THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ELANJIPPALAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006

¶22

6 GOVIND CHANDRASEKHAR ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) C/O ZAMORIN RAJA, AYODHYA APARTMENTS, THIRUVANNOOR NADA, THIRUVANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE ,PIN-673002. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)

¶23

ADDL.R7: CHANDRIKA HARIDAS,
AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE U.HARIDAS,
VAIKATTUKURISSI HOUSE, PANAMANNA,
PANAMANNA SOUTH, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679501.
ADDL.R8:DIVYA HARIDAS,
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. LATE V.HARIDAS,
VAIKATTUKURISSI HOUSE, PANMANNA, PANAMANNA SOUTH,
OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD-679501.

¶24

ADDL.R9:DEEPA H.,

¶25

AGED 22 YEARS,D/O.LATE V.HARIDAS,VAIKATTUKURISSI
HOUSE,PANAMANNA,PANAMANNA SOUTH,PALAKKAD-679501.

¶26

*ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/1/24 IN IA
1/24 IN WA 1717/23.

¶27

BY ADVS.
MOHAN C.MENON
MEENA.A.
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
NIVEDHITHA PREM.V

¶28

SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN - SC

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1720/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶35

¶36

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶37

WA NO. 1720 OF 2023

¶38

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2023 IN WP(C)

¶39

NO.14616 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶40

APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶41

SAMOOTHIRI RAJA KOZHIKODE
AGED 98 YEARS
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE,
SAMOOTHIRI CENTRAL DEVASWOM OFFICE,
VALAYANAD, P.O.KOMMERI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673007

¶42

BY ADVS.
A.C.VENUGOPAL
VIDHYA. A.C
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)

¶43

RESPONDENTS/PETIITONER AND RESPONDENT 1 TO 4:

¶44

1 V.M.KARUNAKARAN

¶45

AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDA MENON,
EMPLOYED AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
ZAMORIN CENTRAL DEVASWOM OFFICE,
RESIDING AT GOVINDAM, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE,
P.O.FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673632

¶46

2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE,
(DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶47

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶48

4

¶49

3 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006

¶50

4 COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673006

¶51

5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶52

MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE DIVISION,
D BLOCK (3RD FLOOR), CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673020

¶53

BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN - SC

¶54

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶55

04.03.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1717/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶57

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

[WA Nos.1717/2023, 1720/2023]

¶60

Amit Rawal, J.

¶61

This order shall dispose of two writ appeals preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the claim of the party respondents/writ petitioners challenging the order dated 12.04.2023 has been allowed and they have been permitted to discharge the duties of Executive Officers and one Administrator till the age of 65 years, on behalf of a trustee-employer-Zamorian.

¶62

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, was enacted to provide better administration and governance of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments in the Malabar District of Kerala on account of not only geographical classification but historical reasons and such institutions as per the Act are defined as not public authorities. On enactment of aforementioned Act, the previous Act of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1926 was

¶63

¶64

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶65

repealed. Section 6 of the 1951 Act defines Area committee, Assistant Commissioner, Board, Charitable Endowments, Commissioner, Court, Deputy Commissioner, Government, Hereditary trustee, Math, person having interest, prescribed, religious charity, religious endowment or endowment, religious institution, specific endowments, temple, and trustee, but do not define the nomenclature of employees like manager or administrator.

¶66

Section 7 deals with the constitution of Malabar Devaswom Board consisting of nine (9) Hindu members. Section 8C of the Act deals with the officers and employees of the Board whereby the Government has power to appoint an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to Government who is professing Hindu religion and believer of God and temple worship as Commissioner of the Board on such terms and conditions. He shall be also the Chief Executive Officer of the Board who shall implement all the decisions of the Board. Section 8D envisages the appointment to be made through the Kerala Public Service

¶67

¶68

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶69

Commission of officers and employees of the Board except the Commissioner. Section 20 in Chapter III of the Act envisages powers and duties of the Commissioner who have a general superintendence and control including the power to pass orders to ensure that the endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated. The trustee as defined under Section 6(19) would mean any person or a body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration of religious institution is vested and includes any person or body which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee. Trustee would not be an employee of the Board. Normally it is vested in the heirs of the founder unless the founder has laid down a special scheme of succession or otherwise. Hereditary trustee would mean a trustee of religious institutions succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or specifically provided for by the founder, so long so such scheme of succession is in force. So certain trustees who had a control of various temples have the power to appoint

¶70

¶71

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶72

employees of the temple over and above the powers of the Commissioner to appoint Executive Officers. In the instant case, while exercising the powers vested in him the hereditary trustee, the present Zamorian, vide various appointment orders appointed the writ petitioners as Managers.

¶73

In the absence of any definition of office holders or servants appointed by the trustee while exercising the powers under Section 48 of the 1951 Act, the power to take action against such employees vest with the hereditary trustee. Under Section 58, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to frame a scheme keeping in view the interest of the proper administration of religious institution. On receipt of an application submitted by group of five (5) persons, a scheme settled under the said provision can be settled for temple or for a specific endowment including the appointment or directing the appointment of paid Executive Officers. Section 66 empower the Commissioner to appoint salaried Executive Officers professing Hindu religion by fixing

¶74

¶75

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶76

the term and office of the Executive Officer. Section 100(2) (x) (ii) empowers the State Government to make Rules with regard to the Executive Officers appointed for religious institutions under any of the provisions of the Act or in pursuance of the scheme settled or deemed to be settled whereas 100(2)(y) prescribes the qualification to be possessed by the officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions. The Rules framed under the aforementioned Act are called Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Rules and rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) Part-I (Rule 21) prescribes that retirement age of the Executive Officer shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty years.

¶77

Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) applies to all officers and servants of religious institutions except 'the officer and servants constituting the establishment of the Thirumalai – Thirupathi Devaswom Board' (not applicable) and Executive Officers (emphasis supplied) appointed for religious institutions. Under the aforementioned Rule, sub-

¶78

¶79

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶80

rule 2 of Rule 4 provides that except in the case of the hereditary officer or servant, no person can be appointed or hold any office unless he is not less than eighteen and not more than sixty five years of age.

¶81

The managers appointed by trustee approached this Court for changing the nomenclature of theirs to Executive Officers on the premise that there is no nomenclature of manager provided under the Act. The Learned Single Bench accepted the plea of such persons and directed that they should be considered as Executive Officers under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) of the Rules framed under 1951

¶82

Act and shall be designated as Executive Officers. The aforementioned matter was taken in Writ Appeal and finding of the Single Bench was upheld, matter is reported as 2001 (2) KLT 252 in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala . Owing to the aforementioned judgment two sets of Executive Officers came into existence; the one appointed directly by the Commissioner and the other appointed by the hereditary trustees as managers.

¶83

¶84

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶85

So long so, there was no dispute as the matter

¶86

continued, for, as a convention the employees and certain Chief Executive Officers used to superannuate at the age of sixty five years. Realizing the error and discrepancy/anomaly hereditary trustee passed an order dated 12.04.2023 by noticing that the Executive Officer, as per the judgment referred above, would be covered under Rule 100(2)(x)(ii) the retirement as per Rule 21 is sixty years, passed an order fixing the age as sixty years. The writ petitioners/respondents aggrieved of such order, assailed same on the premise that their appointment as Executive Officer would not be at par with the Executive Officers appointed by the Commissioner and would be a separate cadre falling under the definition of the servant and employees of the Board and therefore would be falling under category 100(2)(y) which envisage that the person can hold an officer beyond the age of eighteen(18) years and less than sixty five(65) years. Similarly a Senior Manager for managing the affairs of the Zamorian was also appointed as

¶87

¶88

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶89

an Administrative Officer in the Central Devaswom Board. The role of the Deputy Officer and the Administrative Officer is not similar but different. Devaswom Board admitted that the Administrator appointed from the post of Manager would be falling within the rigors of Section 100(2)(x)(ii), after the ruling of this Court reported in 2001 (2) KLT 252 (supra).

¶90

The stand of the hereditary trustee was that all the writ petitioners submitted a request dated 19.09.2007 to treat managers of Temple under trustee of Zamorian Raja as Executive Officers with attendant benefits attached to this change of designation. The order of the Zamorian Raja was sent for approval to the Malabar Devaswom Board, the Commissioner informed their inability to consider the order of the Zmorian Raja for approval and rejected the same and it is in that background Zamorian Raja had earlier rejected. But owing to the decision rendered by this Court another order was passed Ext.R3(j) dated 15.09.2009 where all the managers working in the group of temples under the trusteeship of Zamorian Raja were approved as Executive

¶91

¶92

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶93

Officers and therefore would be governed by Section 100(2) (x)(ii) and not Section 100(2)(y).

¶94

Learned Single Bench, on analysis of the rival contentions, vide judgment under challenge allowed the writ petitions.

¶95

Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.A.C.Venugopal submitted that learned Single Bench failed to notice a vital fact that there is no retirement age of 65 years of any officer in service except the convention. The Executive Officer have been brought under the frame work of Section 100(2)(y) which is totally inconsistent with the service conditions of the Executive Officers appointed by the Commissioner under Sections 66 and 67 as, concededly they would be employees falling under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) and as per Rule 21 would be retiring at age of sixty years. In other words, an anomalous situation has occurred which cannot be allowed to be perpetrated.

¶96

The writ petitions were not maintainable as the order of the Zamorian as per Section 18 was appealable

¶97

¶98

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶99

before the Commissioner. The said remedy was assailed. But without seeking the liberty to withdraw and writ petition has been filed. There is no discussion of such objection. Learned Single judge also failed to follow the Division Bench judgment dated 25.02.2022 rendered in Gireesh V.M. v. Malabar Devaswom Board and Others . In support of the contention reliance has also been laid to another Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A.2087/2023 decided on 08.01.2024 titled as K.Venugopalan v. State of Kerala and Others .

¶100

On the other hand, Mr.Mohan.C.Menon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners and Sri.Praveen.K.S. on behalf of the writ petitioner appointed as Administrator from the post of Manager, supported the finding of the Single Bench and submitted that they are on a different cadre and cannot be equated to the Executive Officer even if there is no definition of Administrator or appointment of Managers in the 1951 Act. The pay scale of the Administrator is different than that of the Executive

¶101

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶102

15

¶103

Officer. Therefore, there cannot be any equation. The impugned order dated 12.04.2023 also pertains to retirement age of Administrators and thus gave a cause of action to challenge the same. The appointment of the Petitioner as Administrative Officer had already been approved by the Commissioner under Rule 10 of the Rules under Section 100(2)(y) of 1951 of the Rules and his name has been entered in the schedule of the establishment. The age of retirement of the Administrative Officer would be governed by Section 100(2)(y) which would be sixty years and says he has attained the age of sixty years and has been ordered to continue by interim order of Single Bench to discharge the duties of Administrative Officer but without emoluments. It is in that background the remedy of writ was availed instead of preferring an appeal provided under Section 18.

¶104

Zamorian Raja had no legal authority to change the statutory rules applicable to the post of Administrative Officer. The impugned order essentially related to the

¶105

¶106

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶107

nomenclature or re-designation of the Manager to the post of Executive Officer and Administrative Officer would not have been covered under the said order. Mr.Mohan.C.Menon contended that the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment cited are based upon different set of facts and therefore judgments are in per incuriam and cannot be applicable to the facts of the case as all the writ petitioners form different class and category/cadre. Their nature of duty vis-à-vis the Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner are totally different much less the pay scale. Therefore, cannot be equated by applying Rule 21 of Rules ibid.

¶108

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

¶109

Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would

¶110

be necessary to extract few of the provisions referred to above:

¶111

6(9). ” hereditary trustee ” means the trustee of a religious institution succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically

¶112

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶113

¶114

provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force;

¶115

48. Appointment of office-holders and servants in Religious Institutions. - (1) Vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the office or service is not hereditary.

¶116

(2) In cases where the office or service is hereditary, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed.

¶117

(3) Where however there is a dispute respecting the right of succession, or

¶118

Where such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately,

¶119

¶120

where the person entitled to succeed is a minor without a guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or

¶121

Where the hereditary office holder or servant is suspended from his office under section 49 sub section (1) the trustee may appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the office or perform the service until the disability of the office holder or servant ceases or another person succeeds to the office or service as the case may be,

¶122

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶123

¶124

Explanation .- In making any appointment under this sub section the trustee shall have due regard to the claims of members of the family, if any, entitled to the succession.

¶125

(4) Any person affected by an order of the trustee under subsection (3) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Deputy Commissioner.

¶126

58. Power of Deputy Commissioner to frame scheme .- (1) When the Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that in the interests of the proper administration of a religious institution, a scheme should be settled for the institution, or when not less than five persons having interest make an application writing, stating that in the interests of the proper administration of religious institution a scheme should be settled for it, the Deputy Commissioner shall consult in the prescribed manner the trustee and the persons having interest and the Area Committee, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution; and if, after such consultation, he is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to do so, he shall, by order, frame a scheme of administration for the institution.

¶127

(2) A scheme settled under sub-section (1) for a temple or for a specific endowment other than one attached to a math may contain provision for-

¶128

(a) removing any existing trustee, whether hereditary or non-hereditary:

¶129

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶130

¶131

Provided that where provision is made in the scheme for the removal of a hereditary trustee, provision shall also be made therein for the appointment as trustee of the person next in succession who is qualified;

¶132

(b) appointing or directing the appointment of, a paid executive officer, who shall be a person professing the Hindu religion on such salary and allowance as may be fixed, to be paid out of the funds of the institution; and defining the powers and duties of such officer:

¶133

Provided that in making any provision of the nature specified in clause (b) due regard shall be had to the claims of persons belonging to the religious denomination for whose benefit the institution is chiefly maintained.

¶134

(3) A scheme settled under sub-section (1) for a math or for a specific endowment attached to a math may contain provision for-

¶135

(a) associating one or more persons with the trustee or constituting a separate body for the purpose of participating or assisting in the whole or any part of the administration of the endowments of such math or of the specific endowment; provided that such person or

¶136

persons or the members of such body shall be chosen from persons having interest in such math or endowment;

¶137

(b) appointing or directing the appointment of a paid executive officer, who shall be a person

¶138

¶139

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶140

professing the Hindu religion, on such salary and allowances as may be fixed by the Deputy commissioner, to be paid out of the trust funds, and defining the powers and duties of such officer;

¶141

¶142

(4) The Deputy Commissioner may determine what the properties of the religious institution are and append to the scheme a schedule containing a list of such properties:

¶143

Provided that such determination shall not affect the rights of persons who are the hostile possession of any of the said properties.

¶144

(5) Pending the framing of a scheme for a temple or for a specific endowment other than one attached to a math, the Deputy Commissioner may appoint a fit person to discharge all or any of the functions of the trustee thereof and define his powers and duties.

¶145

(6) The Deputy Commissioner may, at any time, after consulting the trustee and the persons having interest and the Area Committee, if any, having jurisdiction over the institution, by order, modify or cancel any scheme settled under sub-section (1) or a scheme settled by the Board under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926.

¶146

(7) Every order of the Deputy Commissioner setting, modifying or cancelling a scheme under this section shall be published in the prescribed manner and on such publication shall, subject to the provisions of section 61 and 62, be

¶147

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶148

¶149

binding on the trustee, the executive officer and all persons having interest.

¶150

(8) The powers conferred by this section shall, in respect or maths, be exercised by the Commissioner or by a Deputy Commissioner to whom powers in this behalf have been delegated by the Commissioner under section 10, subsection (2).

¶151

66. Appointment of salaried Executive Officer .- (1) For every institution notified under this Chapter, the Commissioner shall as soon as may be appoint a salaried executive officer, who shall be a person professing the Hindu religion.

¶152

(2) The salary and allowance of the executive officer, as determined by the Commissioner, shall be paid from the funds of the religious institution.”

¶153

100. Power to make rules.- (1) The State Government may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act and not inconsistent therewith.

¶154

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, they shall have power to make rules with reference to the following matters:-

(a) xxxxx

(b) xxxxx

xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(x) the qualifications, method of recruitment, pay, grant of leave, leave allowance and travelling allowance, personal conduct and punishment, of

¶159

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶160

¶161

(i) xxxxxx

¶162

(ii) executive officers appointed for religious institutions under any provision of this Act or in pursuance of any scheme settled or deemed to be settled thereunder;

¶163

Rules under Section 100(2)(p) and (x)(ii) Part I Rules regulating the conditions of service, pay, etc., of paid executive officers, appointed for religious institutions under the Act (excluding the Executive officer, Tirumalai-Thirupathi Devasthanams) or in pursuance of any scheme settled or deemed to be settled thereunder.

¶164

1 . In this part of rules, the expression “Executive Officer” includes any paid officer appoint under a scheme settled or deemed to be settled under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951), by whatever designation called, provided that he is the highest executive authority in charge the administration of the religious institutions:

¶165

Provided further that this shall not include the Executive Officer, Tirumalai-Tirupati Devastanams.

¶166

Rule 21. The date of compulsory retirement of an Executive Officer shall the date on which he attains the age of sixty years.

¶167

Explanation.-For the purpose of this rule, Executive Officer includes an Executive Officer continuing in service by virtue of extension granted by Government.

¶168

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶169

¶170

Rules under Section 100(2)(y) Part I

¶171

The rules in this Part shall apply to all officers and servant of religious institutions except officers and servants constituting the establishment of the TirumalaiTirupathi Devastanams to whom the rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(i) apply and executive officers appointed for religious institutions under any provisions of the Act or in pursuance of the scheme settled or deemed to be settled thereunder, to whom the rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) apply.

¶172

xxxxx

¶173

xxxxx

¶174

4.(1). xxxxx

¶175

(2). Except in the case of a hereditary officer or servant, no person may be appointed to or hold any officer unless he is not less than eighteen and not more than sixty-five years of age.”

¶176

On perusal of the provisions extracted above, it is deduced that power to appoint Executive Officer vests with the Commissioner. Concededly, all the writ petitioners were appointed as Managers by various appointment orders through a hereditary trustee. The power of superintendence, control and punishment vested with the hereditary trustee. So long so there was no dispute were discharging the duties

¶177

¶178

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶179

of manager, but aggrieved of their nature of duties, Managers working under the hereditary trustee approached this Court for changing the designation as Executive Officer. As noticed above, the said contention was accepted and approved by the Division in the judgment in Narayanan Nair supra. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment reads as under:

¶180

We are of the view that even though Manager was appointed under the Scheme framed under Ext. P1 as amended by Exts. P2 and P3 orders it is amendable to disciplinary powers conferred on the Commissioner under the H.R. & C.E. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Even if Manager was appointed by the then Board of Trustee the present Board of Trustees has got the power under S. 49 of the H.R. & C.E. Act to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Commissioner is also not divested with these powers to take appropriate proceedings under the Rules framed under S. 100(2)(x) (ii) of the Act, 1951. R. 1 states that the expression "Executive Officer" includes any person appointed under a scheme settled or deemed to be settled under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951) by whatever designation called, provided that he is the highest executive authority in charge of the administration of the religious institutions. It

¶181

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶182

¶183

is evident from the aforementioned rule that the expression "Executive Officer" includes and takes in any paid officer appointed under the Scheme. Therefore, even if the Scheme is settled before the coming into force of the Act, 1951 and a person is appointed under the scheme he is the executive authority in charge of the administration of the religious institutions and would satisfy the definition of Executive Officer.

¶184

We are therefore of the view that the Manager appointed under the Scheme would come within the expression "Executive Officer". In this connection reference is also made to R.11 which deals with sanction of leave to the Executive Officer. In that Rule the expression "appointing authority" takes in Area Committee, Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be. R. 15 confers powers on the appointing authority to impose punishment on the Executive Officer after following the procedures laid down in R. 16. R. 16 also says that Executive Officer may be placed under suspension pending enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest and in the interest of religious institution concerned. Since the Manager satisfies the definition of Executive Officer, we are of the view that the appointing authority under the Act has got the jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings including suspension against the appellant. This view is in accordance with the principle laid down in Madhavan Nai v. Commissioner for H.R. & C.E and Ors. 1963 KLT 480 as well as the Bench decision of this

¶185

¶186

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶187

Court in M.Vittal Bhat v. Srimad Anantheswar Temple 1978 (1) SLR 772.”

¶188

On perusal of the above, it is found that the Executive Officers would be governed by the Rules under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) of Rules framed in 1950 Act. The order aforementioned was not implemented and convention of retiring the employees and servants discharging different set of duties continue to operate till the age of sixty five years. The aforementioned facts were emphatically relied and pleaded in the writ petition much less granting of the higher benefits. It was explained in the counter affidavit that it pertained to the employment of the managers who are/ were promoted as Executive Officers after the judgment but before passing an effective order to overcome the anomaly and disparity vis-à-vis the nature of the duty and age of retirement. There would have been a force in proving the plea of discrimination, had the management of hereditary trustee permitted any of the writ petitioners to continue beyond the age of 65 years by adopting a pick and choose

¶189

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶190

¶191

policy but wisdom dawned and on 12.04.2023 an order was passed. Translation of the said order reads as under:

¶192

“The Managers appointed by the Zamorin in the Temples under his Trusteeship, by Reference No. 1 representation requested Malabar Devaswom Board through the Trustee to re-designate them as Executive Officer. As per Reference No. 2, the Malabar Devaswom Board reviewed its Order No. 9 (II) (C) dated 24.08.2009 in view of Judgment in 2001 (2) KLT 252 and directed to redesignate the Managers as Executive Officers appointed by the Zamorin Raja under his Devaswoms. The same has been implemented also.

¶193

In pursuance of the implementation of the said order, the Executive Officers became the highest Executive Authority of the Temple and all service conditions of Executive Officers appointed by the Devaswom Commissioner are fully extended and accepted by all concerned. The Trustee has been satisfied that there was delay in implementing the rules under Section 100(2) (P) & (X)(ii) whereby much inconvenience has been caused to the worshippers and public interest and also interest of the Temple whereby the legal duties and responsibilities in the management of the Temple were delayed. In the above circumstances, by redesignation as Executive Officers and service conditions and wages having been fully implemented the duties and function have to be discharged by the Executive Officers in the Temples under the Zamorin and as such the rules framed under Section 100(2) (P) & (X)(ii) are hereby

¶194

¶195

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶196

made applicable to all the Executive Officers The Reference No. 2 shall be implemented without discrimination for which the Administrative Officer appointed in the Central Devaswom Office from among the Mangers of the Temple under Zamorin is also bound by this order. The post of the Administrative Officer created as per Reference No. 3 has been filled up by Reference No. 4 by promotion from among the Mangers for which Reference No. 5 approval was received. So that, the rules framed under Section (2)(P) & (X)(ii) is hereby made applicable to the Administrative Officers.”

¶197

The grievance raised by the petitioners, in our considered view, could not have been entertained by the Single Bench as they were aware of such situation when the judgment re-designating as Executive Officer came to be passed as far back as in 2001; for the purpose of retirement of the Executive Officers, they would be falling under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) providing age to serve is sixty years as per Rules. On nearing the age of sixty years when an order was passed, the said disgruntlement erupted. The objection of maintainability of the writ petitionhas not been considered by the Single Bench, though objection thereof has

¶198

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶199

¶200

specifically taken as, concededly the order impugned was assailed by a revision under Section 18 and was withdrawn without liberty. The application submitted reads as under:

¶201

“The above revision is filed challenging the order issued by the trustee No. ZR. 1720/2023 dated 12.4.2023

¶202

It is submitted that the revision petitioners have decided to file writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, by way of challenging the constitutional validity of the said order, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the above revision petition without prejudice to their right to raise the contentions before appropriate authorities at appropriate time.

¶203

Therefore it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above revision petition.”

¶204

Though it is settled that if the liberty is sought and not granted it would have been deemed to be granted. But the affected parties cannot be permitted to indulge into forum shopping for, the revisional court did not grant any interim stay. Things did not stop here. Vide interim order writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 14616/2023 was permitted to continue as Administrative Officer without emoluments. In

¶205

¶206

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶207

case the plea of the writ petitions is accepted, it would create a anomaly and disparity among the set of Executive Officers appointed through Commissioner and re-designated Executive Officers like the petitioners. Rather if the judgment is permitted to sustain, it would give a cause of action to the Executive Officers appointed by the Commissioner to seek the retirement age as 65 years. This aspect has not been envisioned or noticed while allowing the writ petitions. The Division Bench of this Court in Gireesh supra, in Paragraphs 11 and 12, noticing the provisions of the Act, observed as under:

¶208

It is true that the service conditions of Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner under Sec.66 of the Act as well as the Executive Officer appointed by the temple devaswom in terms of Sec.58 read with Sec.48 etc are commonly regulated by the rules framed under Sec.100(2)(x)(ii) of the Act in view of the mandate of that provision. But, that cannot be the basis to contend that an Executive Officer appointed by the temple devaswom is not a temple employee, for the purpose of entitlement for the benefit of Anx.R-1(1) scheme. As already noted in the reference order, the post of Executive Officer of the temple to which the petitioner has been appointed has been included in the statutory schedule as

¶209

¶210

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶211

mandated by Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Sec.100(2)(y) of the Act.

¶212

Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Sec.100(2)(y) of the Act stipulates that the pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each officer and servant of the temple devaswom shall be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the Area Committee in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other institutions, and the trustee shall not alter the schedule without previous permission of the Area Committee or the Commissioner, as the case may be.

¶213

It is the correct appreciation of the Rules, as extracted above. The controversy with regard to the retirement age had also been a matter of ponderance in other Division Bench in W.A.No.2087/2023, while rejecting the contention of the Executive Officer, it has been held as

¶214

under:

¶215

17.A reading of the rules would make it clear that the appointment of the Executive Officer is to be made by the Commissioner and that such Executive Officer would no longer be a temple employee as understood under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act.

¶216

18.The rules under Section 100(2)(y) specifically provides as follows:-

¶217

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶218

¶219

“1.The rules in this Part shall apply to all officers and servants of religious institutions except the officers and servants constituting the establishment of the Tirumalai-Tirupathi Devasthanams to whom the rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(i) apply and executive officers appointed for religious institutions under any provisions of the Act or in pursuance of the scheme settled or deemed to be settled thereunder, to whom the rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) apply.”

¶220

19.It is, therefore, clear that where a person is appointed as an Executive Officer either through direct recruitment or by promotion as provided in Rule 4(a)(1) of the Rules under Section 100(2)(x)(ii), he is thereafter governed by the provisions of the rules framed under Section 100(2) (x)(ii) and cannot continue to be a temple employee so as to be governed by the provisions of the rules framed under Section 100(2)(y). It is clear that the rules under Section 100(2)(y) would apply only to non-hereditary employees of the temple, who are appointed by the trustee and not to Executive Officers, who are appointed by the Commissioner, either by direct recruitment or by transfer from temple employees. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, being an Executive Officer who was appointed by transfer would continue to be governed by the provisions of the rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) cannot be accepted in the light of the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules.

¶221

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the learned single Judge do not require any interference. The

¶222

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶223

¶224

writ appeal thus fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”

¶225

Rule 4 (2) under Section 100(2)(y) does not mean that the servants and officers governed under the aforementioned Rule would continue to hold the office at the age of sixty five years. It only meant that persons less than eighteen years cannot be appointed to draw distinction between the hereditary trustees and other properly recruited employees.

¶226

Even Section 100(2) provides an exception nonapplicability of section 100(2)(y) to the Executive Officers. The aforementioned exception has been made to rule out any confusion or ambiguity if at any point of time, the provisions of section 4 (2), as in the instant case, has been agitated.

¶227

The cumulative effect of our observations lead to an irresistible conclusion that the Single Bench did not notice the impact and effect of the judgments (supra) and also the ratio culled out in the unreported judgment of the Co-

¶228

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶229

¶230

ordinate Bench. For the reason aforementioned, the judgment of the Single Bench is set aside. Writ appeals stand allowed.

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S. SUDHA JUDGE

nak

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶236

¶237

APPENDIX OF WA 1720/2023

¶238

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶239

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FORMULATED BY
THEDEPUTYCOMMISSIONER,HR&CE
DEPARTMENTDATED09.04.1973AND
READABLE COPY

¶240

Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
25.02.2022 IN GIREESH VS MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD IN W.P. (C) NO. 22550 OF
2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶241

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶242

Annexure R(1)(a)TRUE COPY OF THE WORK DISTRIBUTION
ORDER DATED 12-07-2023 ISSUED BY THE
APPELLANT

¶243

Annexure R(1)(b)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ZR31/2018
DATED 01-02-2018 ISSUED BY THE
APPELLANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure R(1)(c)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-4231/2010
DATED 22-02-2011 ISSUED BY THE
APPELLANT TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THRIPPANGODU DEVASWOM
Annexure R1(d)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.J3-803/2009
DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER

¶244

WA Nos.1717/2023 & 1720/2023

¶245

¶246

APPENDIX OF WA 1717/2023

¶247

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶248

`Annexure A1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE`
	`DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN O.A. NO. 13/2001` `DATED 13.01.2004`
`Annexure A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FORMULATED BY THE` `DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT` `VIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 09.04.1973`
`Annexure A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED` `25.02.2022 IN GIREESH VS MALABAR DEVASWOM` `BOARD IN W.P. (C) NO. 22550 OF 2020 OF` `THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`Annexure R7 (a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED` `19.09.07 TO THE TRUSTEE WITH ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION OF THE SAME`
`Annexure R7(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2009` `OF THE TRUSTEE WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION` `OF THE SAME`
`Annexure R7(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.07.09 OF` `THE TRUSTEE WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `THE SAME`
`Annexure R7(d)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED` `22.07.2009 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `THE SAME`
`Annexure R7(e)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2009` `WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME`
`Annexure R7(f)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2009` `WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME`

¶249

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶250

Annexure R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER A7.4231/2010
DATED 22.02.2011 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut v. * v Haridas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Zamorin Raja of Calicut v. * v Haridas

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

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Cibi Komalan

Nijila Das C.M. Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Pazhakulam Sivadasan Vs the State of Kerala

Radha Krishna Bhatta Vs T.Madhava Bhatta

Samoothiri Raja Kozhikode Vs v.M.Karunakaran

Shailaja. L., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Revenue Department Employees Co-Operative Society