GIREESH V.M. Vs. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
LAWS(KER)-2022-2-141
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 25,2022

Gireesh V.M. Appellant
VERSUS
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. - (1.)The prayers in the afore captioned Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
"i.To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the salary from the Management Fund, like any other employee of Kurumathur Illam Group Devaswam

ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salary due to the petitioner along with arrears from the Management Fund of the Malabar Devaswom Board considering Ext.P-6 representation.

iii.For all the costs of the Writ petition. iv. For such other and further reliefs, that are deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

(2.)Heard Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.K.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for R-4 (Temple Trustee).
(3.)This case has come before us on the basis of an order of reference rendered on 5/2/2021 by the learned Single Judge in this WP(C). The relevant part of that reference order, more particularly those contained in paras 7 to 9 thereof, reads as follows:
"7. The learned counsel for the petitioner immediately seeks to draw a distinction between the executive officers appointed by a trustee and executive officers appointed by the Commissioner. It is submitted that the distinction has not been considered in Ext.R1 (2) judgment. It is stated that in the case of executive officers appointed by the Commissioner, they are liable to be transferred to other Devaswoms as well and they are also given additional charge of several temples and they have been permitted to draw their salary from the temples which have financial capacity to make such payments. It is contended that since the petitioner is a temple employee appointed by the trustee, there is no such option available to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be appointed in any other temple. It is contended that if the petitioner is put in charge as executive officer of any other temple under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the petitioner is willing to work and to draw salary from such temple where the financial situation permits.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I find that the petitioner is undoubtedly an executive officer appointed by the trustee. The petitioner's name has also been included in the schedule of establishment of the religious institution concerned. Going by the specific provisions of Ext.R1(1), temple employees would be eligible for financial assistance from the Fund. I am, therefore, prima facie of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to assistance from the Temple Management Fund.

9. However, in a similar factual situation, another learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.R1 (2) judgment had held that executive officers, who are appointed in terms of the rules framed under Ss. 100(2) (p) and (x)(ii) of the Act are not temple employees for the purpose of the Fund and cannot draw amounts from the Fund even when the temple in which they are appointed cannot pay their salary. In view of the fact that this Court has considered the similar situation and has held that the salary of executive officers cannot be paid from the temple fund in view of the fact that they are not temple employees, I am of the opinion that the question whether the petitioner, who has heen appointed by the trustee of the temple under Sec. 48 of the Act in terms of a scheme of administration framed under Sec. 58, is a temple employee and is, therefore, entitled to payment of salary from the Temple Management Fund, which has been constituted as per Ext.R1(1) requires consideration by a Bench of this Court.

In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is referred for consideration by a Division Bench. The Registry shall take steps to place the matter for consideration by a Bench."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.