G.Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

¶1

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:26795

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO.9549OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

G.MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SOWPARNIKA, KALLANPALLIL ILLLAM,
MUTTOM PO, HARIPPAD.ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690511

¶11

BY ADV R.RANJANIE

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

`1`	`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,` `DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE, KAVADIAR P.O,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -` `695003`
`2`	`THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,` `TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS , OFFICE` `OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NANDANCODE, KAVADIAR P.O,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695003`
`3`	`THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, (GENERAL` `ADMINISTRATION),` `TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DEVASWOM` `COMMISSIONER, NANDANCODE, KAVADIAR P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-,` `PIN - 695003`
`4`	`ASSISTANT DEVSWOM COMMISSIONER,` `TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVSWOM` `COMMISSIONER, HARIPPAD GROUP, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,HARIPAD` `ALAPPUZHA DIST,, PIN - 690514`
`5`	`SUB GROUP OFFICER,` `EVOOR SUB GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEWSWOM BOARD, HARIPPAD, PIN -` `690507`
	`BY ADVS.` `C.K. PAVITHRAN` `SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC, TDB(SC-2440)`

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

2025:KER:26795

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025

¶20

The petitioner who was giving services as Santhi in Petty Muttom Mahadeva Temple coming under Muttom Devaswom, Evoor Sub group since 01.01.1988 had retired on 15.02.2023. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse all retirement benefits to the petitioner for his services as Santhi in Muttom Mahadeva temple, including arrears of Dearness Allowance, prompt payment of monthly pension, arrears of pension due from 15.03.2023, gratuity payable to the petitioner, leave surrender amount and all other allowances legally eligible to be paid as retirement benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

Muttom Mahadeva temple is one of the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board where Santhies

¶22

are appointed as Karanma hereditary Santhi.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:26795

¶26

After the enactment of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act 1950, the terms and conditions of the employment of the employees in the Temples/Devaswom coming under the Travancore Devaswom Board are governed by the relevant Rules framed by the Travancore Devaswom Board under the Act. The Travancore Devaswom Board is a statutory body created under Section 28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, and the Board is fully empowered to have absolute control over all the employees of Temples and Devaswom coming under the Board including Karanma employees and Santhies. The Santhikars have two classifications ie, karanma santhi and Non-Karanma Santhies. Karanma Santhies are those who hold Santhi service hereditarily by virtue of special rights vested in their family and Non-Karanma Santhies hold the service not hereditarily, but by appointment. The appointment of Santhikars is made from the selection list duly prepared by the Devaswom Board, and the selection

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶28

¶29

2025:KER:26795 is made on the basis of the recruitment Rules framed by

¶30

the Board whereas Karanma Santhies do not face any selection process and they get appointments to perform Santhi service hereditarily by virtue of special rights vested in their family.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by virtue of special rights vested in his family as Santhikars and therefore, he is a Karanma Santhi. The petitioner is not a regular selected Santhikar. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the service conditions as of the regular employees of the Devaswom Board including the employees of the temple where the petitioner was performing Santhi services and retired on 15.02.2023.

¶32

The service conditions of the Karanma employees are governed by a separate set of Rules framed by the Board under Section 28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act. Rule 2 of the said Act provides that no Karanma right will be recognized in respect of

¶33

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶34

¶35

2025:KER:26795 any post unless the holders are able to produce original

¶36

or attested copies of orders issued by the competent authority definitely granting or recognizing Karanma right. Though the Travancore Devaswom Board would

¶37

have control over the Karanma employees including the Santhies, however their service conditions are separate than the regular employees.

¶38

Smt.Neenu Pavithran, representing Sri.C.K Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as Karanma Santhies are appointed because of the special rights conferred in the family, therefore, they are not entitled for pension etc, inasmuch as the son of the petitioner being born in the family got the right of appointment as Santhi in Temple and the under the Rules framed for Karanma employees, no pension is provided.

¶39

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The issue involved in this writ petition is no longer Res-integra inasmuch as the learned Single Bench

¶40

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶41

¶42

2025:KER:26795

¶43

of this Court in R.Manohara Warrier & others v. State

¶44

of Kerala and another [2009(2) KHC 928] has unequivocally held that the Karanma claiming pay pension and other service benefits as payable to the regular employees of the Board would not be admissible to them. Paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the said judgment of the learned Single Judge are extracted hereunder:

¶45

“11. As observed already, the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the verdict in 1988 KHC 82: 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board v. Chellappan Pillai) had also occasion to advert to the order of the Secretary of the Board ROC 2901/87 Misc. dated 26/08/87, prescribing the 'Scale of Pay' of 'Karanma' employees in 'Major' and 'Minor' Devaswoms (paragraph 5). It was also placing reliance there on, that the finding was rendered, sustaining the action pursued by the Devaswom Board fixing the conditions of service of the concerned employee, who was a 'Karanma' employee earlier, as to his age of superannuation. The above order explicitly referring to the prescription of the 'Scale of Pay' of the 'Karanma' employee in Minor and Major Devaswoms i.e over and above the Rules and Orders prescribing the scales of pay of other employees of the Board has very well been sustained and relied on by the Division Bench, upholding the Rule making power of the Board and the consequential steps taken thereunder. In other words, even though the actual issue involved in the above case was with regard to the 'age of superannuation' of the 'Karanma' employee, the authority of the Board and the orders passed fixing the conditions of service including prescription of Pay Scale separately to the 'Karanma'

¶46

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶47

¶48

2025:KER:26795

¶49

employee of the Major and Minor Devaswoms, stand approved by the Division Bench. As such, the above decision actually stands against the case put forth by the petitioners, claiming the pay, pension and other service benefits as payable to the regular employees of the Board and the understanding of the petitioners to the contrary is only wrong and misconceived.

¶50

With regard to the reliance placed on Ext. P5 verdict passed by another Division Bench of this Court, giving a positive direction to pay the petitioner therein (Smt. M. K. Omanakutty- former 'Karanma' employee) all the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the Board, it is very much relevant to note that no declaration is made by the Division Bench therein, that all the 'Karanma' employees after 06/08/1981 are entitled to get the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the Board. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner therein was that her family was having 'Karanma' rights: that she and her sister Saraswathiamma were serving as 'Karanma' employees but were being treated as 'part time Kazhakam' though discharging duties as 'full time Kazhakam' and that the Board by proceedings dated 12/12/85 had allowed the petitioner and her sister to have the pay scale and allowances of a regular employee w.e.f. 01/01/1986, on condition that they gave up the 'Karanma' right of the family. The said petitioner was not given the above benefit, despite granting similar benefit to her sister Saraswathiamma. The petitioner therein came to know about the Board order only much later, where upon, the relinquishment of the 'Karanma' right was executed and given by the 'Karnavan' of the family, pursuant to which, the Administrative Officer and Assistant Devaswom Commissioner recommended the claim. Instead of the posting the petitioner as a ‘full time departmental Kazhkam’, the Devaswom Board passed an order, granting the departs of pay and allowances payable to 'full time Karaıma-Kazhakam', which hence was sought to be intercepted by filing OP 17715 of 1993. This was allowed by the Division Bench

¶51

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶52

¶53

2025:KER:26795

¶54

as per Ext. P5 verdict, directing the respondent Devaswom Board to grant all the pay and allowances as payable to the 'Departmental Kazhakam' to the petitioner therein. In view of the very admitted separate existence of full time 'Departmental Kazhakam' and full time 'Karanma-Kazhakam', attached with different pay scale and allowances as discernible from paragraph 4 of Ext. P5 itself, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that all the 'Karanma' employees after 06/08/1981 are entitled to have similar pay and allowances as payable to the regular departmental employees of the Devaswom Board. More so, in view of the existence of the separate orders issued by the Secretary of the Board providing for the scale of pay of 'Karanma' employees in 'Major' and 'Minor' Devaswoms as referred to in paragraph 5 of the verdict rendered by the earlier Division Bench in 1988 KHC 82: 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board v. Chellappan Pillai).

¶55

This Court had also occasion to go through the common order dated 08/08/2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, referring to the general decision stated as taken by the Devaswom Board to continue 'Karanma' service, whereby it was observed and directed that those who were already appointed would be given emoluments to which they were entitled to and those who had applied for appointment would be appointed as per 'Karanma Rules’. Quite incidentally, it is also relevant to note that the above order, which is subsequent to Ext. P5 verdict dated 07/08/2000, was also passed by the very same Division Bench, who passed Ext. P5 judgment and as such, this Court cannot but repel the contentions put forth from the part of the petitioners that the Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext. P5 verdict, has chosen to provide the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the Board, to the 'Karanma' employee as well. This being the position, there is absolutely no conflict between the orders/verdicts passed by the different Division Benches of this Court as referred to herein before. Since the

¶56

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶57

¶58

2025:KER:26795

¶59

conditions of service differ, there is no question of violation of the principle of Equal pay for Equal work and there is no discrimination or arbitrariness to attract any infringement of Art. 14 as well. No case is made out calling for any interference.

¶60

The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.”

¶61

The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.2446/2009 dated 22.11.2014.

¶62

In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision as well as the relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner cannot claim the right to pension inasmuch as his service conditions are different than the regular employees of the Devaswom Board. Thus, I find this writ petition has no merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

D. K. SINGH JUDGE

¶65

AP

¶66

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶67

¶68

2025:KER:26795

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9549/2024

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶71

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE` `PETITIONER AS APPROVED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY` `OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVISED SCALE, AS` `APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF SUB GROUP` `DEVASWOM OFFICE, EVOOR, DATED 8.10.1943(ME 1.3-` `119)`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `18.10.1943(ME 22.02.119) ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT` `DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA GROUP,`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SUB GROUP` `OFFICER TO GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI DATED 20.12.1987`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.11.1992` `ISSUED BY NARAYANA NAMBOOTHIRI TO THE DEVASWOM` `COMMISSIONER OF MAVELIKKARA GROUP OF TRAVANCORE` `DEVASWOM BOARD`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `14.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `15.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM AUDIT` `OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA, TO THE 4 TH RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR PENSION AND` `COMMUTATION, ADDRESSED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT,`
`Exhibit P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.11.2023,` `ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4 TH` `RESPONDENT,`
`Exhibit P11`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE` `5 TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4 TH RESPONDENT, DATED NIL`
`Exhibit P12`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2022 IN` `W.P.(C)NO. 28180/2022`

¶72

WP(C) NO. 9549 OF 2024

¶73

¶74

2025:KER:26795

¶75

Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED
15.10.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GROUP
COMMISSIONER OF HARIPAD GROUP OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER RECEIVED FOR EXT.P13
APPLICATION FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH
THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER DATED 5.3.2021
RECEIVED FOR EXT.P15 APPLICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH
THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER DATED 18.2.2020
RECEIVED FOR EXT.P17 APPLICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the proceedings No. Roe
10816/22/Mis-1 dated 02.02.23

G.Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaprasad.K Vs State of Kerala

Aneena Joseph Vs the High Court of Kerala

Anil K. Vs State of Kerala

President, Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. LL-139, Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

Subhadramma T.G., Vs Union of India

K.C. Asokan Vs State of Kerala