Dismissed

Nataraja Gurukkal v. the Commissioner

Madras HC29 Nov 2021WA/1700/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking reinstatement as an archaga. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting the abolition of hereditary archaga rights under Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1971 and the appellant's failure to claim hereditary status. The Single Judge's order was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

Nataraja Gurukkal Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.11.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR. J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶5

W.A.No.1700 of 2013 and C.M.P. No.7529 of 2018

¶6

Nataraja Gurukkal .. Appellant/ Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Commissioner,

¶9

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administrative Department, Nungambakkam High Road,

¶10

Chennai – 600 034.

¶11

Hereditary Trustee, Arulmighu Suyambulinga Swami Temple, Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents/ Respondents

¶12

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 12.02.2013 made in W.P.No.20708 of 2005 on the file of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in W.P.No.20708 of 2005:

¶14

The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent having Ref.D.DIS.R.P. No.44 of 2002 D2, dated 07.08.2004, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner as archakar in the Arumigu Suyambulinga sami temple, Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District (in short 'temple').

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. A. Muthukumar

¶16

For Respondents: Mr. S. Arumugam, Govt. Advocate – R1

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J. )

¶20

Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.20708 of 2005, the Writ Petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.

¶21

2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1 st respondent dated 07.08.2004, to quash the same and consequently directing the 2 nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner as archaga in the Arulmigu Suyambulinga Swami Temple, Uvari, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶22

3.1 It is the case of the appellant that he was working along with 22 other archagas for about 25 years, as one of the Gurukkal in the temple managed by the 2 nd respondent/hereditary trustee. Since the appellant fell ill, on 20.04.1989, he deputed, on his own, his brother-inlaw, viz., Chockalingam to perform the poojas in the temple. The arrangements made by the appellant was objected to by the previous trustee, viz., P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, who was the hereditary trustee. The appellant was issued with show cause notice dated 26.09.1989 calling upon him to submit his explanation with regard to the arrangements made by him in deputing his brother-in-law to perform the poojas in the temple. The hereditary trustee, viz., P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, issued another show cause notice dated 01.11.1989 alleging that, without getting any prior permission from the trustees, he permitted his brother-in-law who does not have any qualification to perform pooja service in the temple and who do not have any qualification to perform pooja. The appellant sent a reply dated 12.11.1989, explaining the reason for permitting his brother-in-law to perform pooja in the temple. Pursuant to the reply sent by the appellant, disciplinary action was initiated against him by the hereditary trustee and he was removed from service.

¶23

3.2 Challenging the order passed by the hereditary trustee, the appellant filed an appeal in A.P. No.1 of 1990 before the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department and the said authority also dismissed the appeal by order dated 10.12.1990.

¶24

3.3. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred a revision in R.P.No. 10 of 1991 before the the 1 st respondent and the said authority set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh enquiry. Subsequently, the hereditary trustee, P.T.Thangasamy Rajan, had passed away, hence, the HR & CE Department appointed a fit person in the place of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hereditary trustee.

¶25

3.4 On remand, the Deputy Commissioner, took up the appeal in A.P. No. 3 of 1992, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report stating that the appellant had already been reinstated in service. In view of such reinstatement, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 24.05.1993, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.10008 of 1995 before this Court challenging the appointment of a fit person and another Writ Petition in W.P. No.4162 of 1994, questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in A.P. No.3 of 1992, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. This Court, set aside the appointment of fit person and also set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in A.P. No.3 of 1929 and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal.

¶26

3.5 Aggrieved over the order passed in W.P. No.4162 of 1994, the appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No. 2198 of 2001 and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.11.2001, dismissed the appeal.

¶27

3.6 The Joint Commissioner HR & CE Department passed an order in A.P. No. 2 of 2001 confirming the earlier order of removal of the appellant from the service of archaga. Challenging the same, a revision was filed in R.P. No.44 of 2002 before the 1 st respondent and the revisional authority dismissed the appellant's revision. Challenging the order passed by the 1 st respondent, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition.

¶28

4. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the case of both sides, by order dated 12.02.2013 dismissed the Writ Petition holding that after the abolition of hereditary archagars, no archaga can claim as hereditary archagars in any temple under the control of HR & CE Administration after 1971. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner being a non- hereditary archaga, should have got appointment order from the hereditary trustee by producing all relevant certificates, but, without doing so, he cannot question the right of the hereditary trustee in calling for the certificates of the writ petitioner's proficiency to perform poojas in the temple even in the middle of the writ petitioner's service. The learned Single Judge has also observed that till date the writ petitioner has not produced any certificate of qualification and it goes without saying that he is disqualified from working as archaga in the temple. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner has filed the above Writ Appeal.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

5. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the appellant being a hereditary archaga, the provision of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964 has no application. Further, the learned counsel submitted that Rule 5 shall apply only to non-hereditary archagar and not to the hereditary archaga.

¶31

6. But, on a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is clear that the appellant has not uttered a single word to the effect that he is a hereditary archaga. In the absence of any specific averment stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to the said effect, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is a hereditary archaga cannot be accepted.

¶32

7. Mr. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submitted that the rights of hereditary succession of the office of archaga has been abolished by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1971, which came into force on 08.01.1971. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant having been born in the year 1953, his service came to an end on completion of the age of 60 years as per Rule 5.

¶33

8. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 7 [ N.Kumaraswamy Gurukkal v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Nungambakkam, Madras and another] relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No. 424 of 1999, dated 11.3.1999, came to the conclusion that after the introduction of Act 2 of 1971 on 08.01.1971, the rights of hereditary succession of the office of archaga has been abolished and the said Judgment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶34

9. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 424 of 1999, dated 11.3.1999, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶35

10. In view of Act 2 of 1971 , the claim of the appellant was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. W do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rj

¶41