Travancore Devaswom Board vs K.M.Krishnakumar on 23 November, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Travancore Devaswom Board vs K.M.Krishnakumar on 23 November, 2021

The contesting respondent 1 & 2 in this Writ Appeal/writ petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil) No.33770/2016 before this Court for prayers in the matter of quashment of impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 31.8.2016 issued by the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, to the limited extent it has been ordered that approval of appointment was denied in respect of the writ petitioners from the original date of their appointments, and for mandamus to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities concerned to approve the appointments denied of the writ petitioners with effect from the date of eligibility and to grant them all consequential benefits including salary, scale of pay, bonus, etc. W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..3..

2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2019 finally disposing of the above WP(C) with the direction to the respondents in the WP(C)/writ appellants herein to pass orders and grant appropriate scale of pay to the writ petitioners with effect from the dates they have joined duty as "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" [കകാരകാണ്മ കകസകാനനി ലകാവണണ] and arrears of pay due to them shall be calculated and disbursed to them within 3 months.

3. Now, being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 10.10.2019 disposing the above WP(C) with the abovesaid directions, the respondents in the WP(C) Travancore Devaswom Board officials concerned have now preferred the instant intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Courts Act, 1958.

4. Heard Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board appearing for the appellants in the W.A./respondents in the WP(C) and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the W.A./writ petitioners.

W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..4..

5. Reference to the factual details in this case will be apposite. By Ext.P-2 letter dated 14.3.2005, the Devaswom Manager concerned has intimated the Karanavar/Moopan of the writ petitioners' family, seeking his nomination against the vacancy that has occurred on the retirement of one Sri.Venugopala Sharma, in the post/position as "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" ["കകാരകാണ്മ കകസകാനനി ലകാവണണ"] of Kaviyoor Devaswom. Thereupon, the Village Officer, Kaviyoor, has made due enquiry and has submitted Ext.P-3 report dated 3.6.2005 stating that he has made enquiries in regard to the Karanavar of the family and has reported that Sri.K.P.Hareeshwarakumar, is the person competent to nominate the next person to the abovesaid position of Kaviyoor Devaswom. Consequently, the abovesaid Hareeshwarakumar has given Ext.P-4 letter dated 14.6.2005 intimating the Devaswom authority concerned about his willingness to nominate the first writ petitioner Sri.K.M.Krishnakumar, against the abovesaid post/position vacated by Sri.Venugopala Sharma. Ext.P-5 is the consent dated 14.6.2005 submitted in that regard. It is also W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..5..

stated that the Tahsildar's certificate was also obtained in proof of entitlement of Hareeshwarakumar to make the nomination. Thereafter, the first writ petitioner had submitted all relevant records and has taken charge immediately, consequent to the retirement of Sri.Venugopala Sharma from abovesaid position in the Kaviyoor Devaswom. The complaint of the first writ petitioner is that, he was not granted minimum pay and allowances and was being paid only allowances applicable to temporary employees. Aggrieved by this, the first writ petitioner had submitted Ext.P-6 representation dated 28.4.2006 before the Assistant Commissioner of Devaswom. The specific case of the writ petitioners is to the effect that the first writ petitioner had worked in the position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" in Kaviyoor Devaswom, for the period from 30.6.2005 to 1.11.2013. Thereafter, the second writ petitioner had taken charge in the abovesaid position from 2.11.2013 and that even now he is presently continuing on daily wages. The nomination of the second writ petitioner was also duly submitted in the prescribed stamp paper along with all records. Further that, Ext.P-7 is the W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..6..

affidavit dated 2.11.2013 was submitted. The Village Officer has also submitted certificate as per Ext.P-8 dated 1.11.2013 in support of the claim of the second writ petitioner stating inter alia therein that Sri.K.Parameswaran Moosath, is the Moopan of the family and that said certificate is issued for the purpose of the claim in relation to the "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor Devaswom. Thereupon, the second writ petitioner has also submitted Ext.P-9 request/representation dated 2.11.2013 before the Commissioner of Devaswom Board praying that his appointment in abovesaid position may be approved. The Commissioner of Devaswom Board has issued Ext.P-10 letter dated 24.4.2014 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Devaswom Board to produce relevant records. That, in pursuance thereof, another set of records were also produced before the respondents in the WP(C). That, Ext.P-11 is the revised affidavit dated 19.2.2015 submitted from the present Moopan/Karanavar. Nomination letter, certification from the Village Officer, SSLC certificate etc in relation to the appointment of the second writ petitioner to the abovesaid post/position as W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..7..

"Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor Devaswom. The complaint of the writ petitioners is that in spite of consistent compliance of various requirements, both in the case of appointment of first writ petitioner as well as the appointment of the second writ petitioner to the abovesaid post/position, timely steps for granting approval from the competent authority of the Devaswom Board was not made and both the writ petitioners were given only the allowances for temporary employees, and not the allowances in the pay scale prescribed for abovesaid post/position. It is their case that the second writ petitioner has been paid only Rs.250/- per day as daily wages and that he is entitled to get salary in the pay scale of Rs.7000-200-800-250- 8500 which is the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3600-90-4300 which was in vogue up to 1.7.2009. That, the writ petitioners are also entitled for bonus at the rate of Rs.2400/-, which was also not been paid. That, bonus is regulated by Ext.P-12 guidelines dated 22.8.2015.

6. Since, consistently, no action was forthcoming from the Devaswom Board authorities concerned, the writ petitioners W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..8..

were constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C).No.32185/2015, in which this Court rendered judgment in that WP(C) directing the competent authority of the Devaswom Board to consider the representation produced therein as Exts.P-5 & P-8, and take a decision without any further delay. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Devaswom Board has issued impugned Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 31.8.2016 granting approval only for the appointment of the second writ petitioner Sri.Manu Krishnan, in respect of abovesaid position as "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor Devaswom. The stand of the Devaswom Board authorities is that the benefit of Ext.P-1 will have only prospective effect from the date of its issuance, viz 31.8.2016, and that the second writ petitioner is entitled for pay and allowances only with effect from the date of issuance of Ext.P-1, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition WP(C) No.33770/2016 with the aforementioned prayers.

7. As indicated hereinabove, the learned Single Judge, W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..9..

after hearing both sides, has held that the stand taken by the Devaswom Board authorities in the impugned proceedings is legally wrong and untenable, and that the "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" is a right available to a family and since, the the writ petitioners have completed all formalities and had obtained all necessary reports showing the title of Moopan of the family to make nomination, as well as that it is Moopan/Karanavar of the family who has appointed initially the first writ petitioner and subsequently, the second writ petitioner for the abovesaid periods in question. The learned Single Judge has directed that the respondents in the WP(C) shall pass orders granting appropriate scale of pay to the writ petitioners with effect from the dates they have joined duty as "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" and arrears of pay shall be rebutted and disbursed to them within 3 months, etc.

8. It may be profitable to refer to the main contents in the counter affidavit dated 10.6.2019 filed by the 1st respondent in the above WP(C) from para 4 onwards thereof, which read as follows [See pages 41 & 42 of the paper book of this Writ Appeal]: W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..10..

"4. It is not clear from the writ petition what the petitioners intend from the claim "from the date of entitlement". Sri.Venugopala Sharma who was karanma Kaisthani rerited on 30.06.2005. KP Hareeshwarakumar, senior most member of the family who was competent to nominate any member of the family nominated K.N Krishnakumar as Kaisthani in Kaviyoor Devaswom. On the basis of the nomination final decision has to be taken by the Devaswom Board. But as a temporary arrangement KN Krishnakumar was appointed on daily wages. When the 1 st petitioner failed to attend duty 2nd petitioner Manukrishnan was appointed on daily wages from 02.11.2013 onwards. He was nominated by Ext P7 by then karnavar K Parameswaran Moosath. Accepting the nomination 2nd petitioner was appointed as Kaisthani as per Ext P1 dated 31.08.16. In the same proceedings PS Gireeshkumar was also appointed as Kazhakam.

5. In the writ petition the petitioners claim salary and other emoluments as given to other karanma employees. In para 11 it is stated that the 2nd petitioner is paid only a sum of Rs.250 per day as wages and he claims salary in the scale of pay of Rs.7000-200- 800-250-8500. The petitioners are also claiming bonus at the rate of Rs2400 based on Ext P12. It is submitted that the petitioners did not get any right to be appointed as and when his predecessor retires. The karanma right is vested with the family which will be executed by the senior most member of the family. As per the records produced KP Hareeswarakumar was the seniormost member in 2005. But as per Ext P7 dated 02.11.13, K Parameswaran Moosath, then seniormost member nominated the 2nd petitioner and he was appointed. The petitioners are entitled for scale of pay, bonus etc only after getting permanent appointment.

6. The petitioners could not claim appointment as a matter of right. It is clear from Ext P1 that Manukrishnan was appointed with effect from 31.08.2016, so that he can claim salary only with effect from the date of Ext P1 proceedings. So the date of eligibility for the pay scale comes only from the date of appointment on regular basis. 2nd petitioner was appointed on regular basis only on 31.08.2016: In the case of 1 st petitioner he was not appointed as karanma Kaisthani, but he worked only a short period on daily wages.

7. Hence it is submitted that petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and therefore it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost."

9. The main contention urged by Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..11..

appearing for the appellants in the W.A. is to the effect that the benefit of pay and allowances will be payable to the second writ petitioner only from the date of issuance of Ext.P-1 order dated 31.8.2016. The case set up in the counter affidavit dated 10.6.2019 filed by the respondents in the WP(C) is as follows:

It is admitted therein that the previous incumbent in the position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" one Sri. Venugopala Sharma, had retired from service on 30.6.2005 and that one Sri.Hareeshwarakumar, who was the senior most member of the family was competent to nominate any member of the family, and he had duly nominated the first writ petitioner Sri.K.M.Krishnakumar, as "Kaisthani" in Kaviyoor Devaswom. On the basis of said nomination, the final decision has to be taken by the Devaswom Board and that it is only as a temporary arrangement that the first writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages, and that later, when he failed to attend duty, the second writ petitioner Sri.Manu Krishnan was appointed on daily wages on 2.11.2013 onwards, and that the second writ petitioner was nominated by Ext.P-7 by the then Karanavar Sri.K.Parameswaran W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..12..

Moosath, and accepting said nomination, the second writ petitioner was appointed as "Kaisthani" per Ext.P-1 dated 31.8.2016.

10. The sheet anchor of the case set up by the respondents in the WP(C) in their counter affidavit is that the writ petitioners will not get any right to be appointed as and when the predecessor retires and the "Karanma" right is vested with the family which is executed by the senior most member of the family, and that as per records produced, one Sri.Hareeshwarakumar, was the senior most member of the family in 2005, and that later, as per Ext.P-7 letter dated 2.11.2013, the then senior most member Sri.K.Parameswaran Moosath, had duly nominated the second writ petitioner and he was appointed, and that the writ petitioners were entitled to scale of pay, bonus, etc only after getting permanent appointment. It is again reiterated that the writ petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, and that they can claim eligibility for securing salary only from the date of issuance of Ext.P-1 proceedings, and that the date of eligibility of pay scale comes only from the date of appointment on W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..13..

regular basis, and that the second writ petitioner was appointed only on regular basis by Ext.P-1 dated 31.8.2016, etc.

11. The abovesaid pleas are opposed by Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel. There is no necessity and the contentions raised by him in the WP(C) have been reiterated herein also.

12. The writ petitioners have also placed reliance on the documents produced as Exts.P-13 & P-14 in the reply affidavit dated 6.8.2019 filed by them in the WP(C).

13. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Vishnu Narayanan Namboodiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 KHC 819 = 2001 (3) KLT 888 = ILR 2000 (2) Ker 270] has noted in para 5 thereof that the judgment of this Court dated 8.8.1997 in O.P. No. 2916/1995 wherein there is a specific direction therein to the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider the question of Karanma right of the Karanma holder in the light of relevant statutes, and after giving the parties affected, an opportunity of being heard. The complainant pleaded that in spite of those W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..14..

directions, no steps have been taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board with regard to the right of Karanma holders. Consequent to the directions issued by the Division Bench in the above cited case, the Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement dated 11.7.2000 wherein it has been stated in para 2 thereof that after considering the contentions urged by the Karanma holders and perusing relevant documents, it is arrived at a conclusion that it could be in the best interest of the Board to continue to recognize the Karanma right as it exists today, and that the rights need be abolished only when there is no member in the family concerned to whom the right can be passed on. The then Devaswom Commissioner also recommended that it is better to continue the system of Karanma service for the time being, and the Travancore Devaswom Board arrived at a conclusion that continuance of Karanma system now in force is more beneficial to the Devaswoms at present, and as such it may be continued deeming that the Karanma families continue for the purpose, retaining the right of the Board to abolish the system if and when the circumstances arise. [See para 7 of Vishnu Narayanan W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..15..

Namboodiri 's case supra]. On this basis, the Division Bench of this Court has held in the afore cited decision in para 8 thereof, that in view of abovesaid decision of the Travancore Devaswom Board not to abolish the Karanma system, and continue the Karanma system, and thus put an end to the controversy raised by the complainants therein. The Division Bench in paras 8 & 9 of the afore cited judgment has accepted the contention of the Travancore Devaswom Board therein that the incumbent therein was not appointed in his right as Karanma holder, but as a special case, etc. However, the Division Bench has categorically held that in para 9 thereof as follows:

"9. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the contention of the Travancore Devaswom can be accepted. The Travancore Devaswon Board has now taken the decision to continue the karanma service for the Temples. If karanma service is to be abolished that has to be done by the Travancore Devaswom Board. According to S.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Board shall have absolute control over the holders of all karanma services and also over all the properties, Thiruppuvarams and other emoluments. Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any karanma service is not being regularly performed or that on alienation of karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the karanma holder or by any member or members of the karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senior member, and also to such other members of the karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary and if after hearing their objections if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the karanma service or of the property or of the Thiruppuvarams or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly, W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..16..

the Board shall suspend, remove, deteraine, cancel or deal with any other manner the karanma right of the family to the service. Thus, karanma right has to be protected by the Travancore Devaswom Board. In this case, such action has not been attempted by the Travancore Devaswom Board."

14. It is also relevant in this context to make a reference to Sec.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, more particularly, Subsection 2 thereof, which reads as follows:

"28.Board's control over Karanma services._(1) The Board shall have absolute control over the holders of all Karanma services and also over all the properties, Thiruppuvarams and other emoluments attached thereto.

(2) Whenever it is reported that owing to incompetency, negligence or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed, or that an alienation of Karanma service or of the property, Thiruppuvaram or other emolument attached thereto, has been effected by the Karanma holder or by any member or members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give due notice of the charge to the head of the family and the next senor member, and also to such other members of the Karanma family as the said Board may deem necessary, and if after hearing their objections, if any, the Board is satisfied that there has been an alienation of the Karanrna service or of the property or of the Thiruppuvaram or of the other emoluments attached thereto or that there has been a failure to perform the service properly or regularly the Board shall suspend, remove, determine, cancel or deal with in any other manner the Karanrna right of the family to the service.

(3) All alienations of Service Inam lands attached to specific services which have been or which may hereafter be made contrary to pass usage shall be treated as null and void. The Board shall have power to resume Service Inam lands attached to specific services if such lands are alienated or if the holders of such lands make default in the performance of the services:

Provided that the Board may in its discretion deal with such lands and the services connected therewith in any other manner it may deem fit.

W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..17..

(4) Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any decision passed under sub-sections (2) and (3) may, within a period of one year from the date of such decision, institute in the District Court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of the property:

Provided that, subject to the result of the suit, if any, the decision of the Board passed under sub-section (2) and (3) of this section shall be final ."

15. The abovesaid provision contained in Subsection 2 of Section 28, is highlighted in para 2 of Ext.P-14 Circular dated 30.9.2003 issued by the Devaswom Board Commissioner. It can be seen that the Board has decided to continue the Karanma service in the temples in question, and if the Karanma service is to be abolished and then that has to be done by the Board as per Sec.28 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Board shall have the absolute control over the holders of all Karanma services and over all properties and other emoluments. Whenever it is reported owing to negligence, incompetency or other cause, any Karanma service is not being regularly performed or that on alienation of Karanma service on property, or other emoluments thereto has been affected by the Karanma holder or any members of the Karanma family, the Board shall give notice of charge to the head of the family who is W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..18..

the senior most member and also such other members of the Karanma family as we hold it deem to be necessary, and after hearing their objections if any, if the Board is satisfied that there is alienation of Karanma service or any other property or the emoluments attached thereto, or there has been failure to perform the service properly or regularly, then only the Board has the power to suspend, remove, cancel or deal with in any manner to the Karanma service of the family. Further, the Division Bench has categorically and unequivocally declared therein that the Karanma right has been protected by the Travancore Devaswom Board, and has also noted therein that in the said case such action was not even attempted till then, etc.

16. In the instant case, there is no dispute for the respondents in the WP(C) that the Karanma right is continuing in the family in question. The respondents in the WP(C) have not even whispered any iota of objections in their counter affidavit or in their pleadings in this appeal that either or both the writ petitioners suffer any legal disability to hold their position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of Kaviyoor W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..19..

Devaswom. So also, the respondents in the WP(C)/appellants have no case that the Karanma right has been extinguished or cancelled in the family in question. In that regard, it is specifically noted that none of the crucial averments in the WP(C) has been in any manner substantially rebutted in the pleadings of their counter affidavit. On the other hand, it is indeed admitted in para 4 of the counter affidavit that as a temporary arrangement, the first writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages, and later when the first writ petitioner failed to attend duty, the second writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages from 2.11.2013. Now, a volte face is made by the Devaswom Board in their writ appeal wherein, it is now sought to averred in Ground 'C' thereof and that too on the first time that there is no evidence on record to show that the first respondent herein/first writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages from 1.7.2005. We are really surprised that such a factual plea is made by the appellants and that too for the first time in this appeal. Whereas, on the other hand, they have clearly admitted in the counter affidavit that as a temporary arrangement, the writ petitioner was appointed on daily wages. W.A. No. 305 of 2021

..20..

17. It is clearly admitted that the Karanma right has been continuing all along. The appellants also no case that the certifications of the competent revenue officials like the Village Officer, the Tahsildar, etc have not been made available in this case. So also, the appellants have no case that the nomination to abovesaid position has not been made by the eligible Karanavar/Moopan of the family, etc. On the other hand it is clearly admitted in the pleadings in the counter affidavit filed in the WP(C) that it was the then existing Karanavar/Moopan of the family who has nominated the first and second writ petitioners for the periods in question. So also, no objections have been taken regarding the enquiry reports and certifications made by the Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc, and also about the various affidavits and statements etc given by the Karanavar/Moopan, etc. The appellants have no case that the factual pleadings in the WP(C) regarding the submission of papers in the case of the first and second writ petitioners respectively for the relevant periods in question, were not received by them in time, etc. The only case set up is that the right for making appointment is for the Travancore W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..21..

Devaswom Board, and they have chosen to make appointment as per Ext.P-1 and that too only in the case of the second writ petitioner, and that the second writ petitioner alone will get the right to receive regular salary, etc and too only prospectively from the date of issuance of Ext.P-1, ie, 31.8.2016. Further that, prior thereto, both the writ petitioners were working on daily wages and not on regular basis, and that the right to secure regular salary etc will accrue only when the regular appointment order as Ext.P-1 is issued by the competent authority of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

18. Our attention is also drawn to the norms at Ext.P-13 which would clearly suggest that even proxies of karanmakkar are entitled to scale of pay as per G.O. No. 665/D referred to item No.29 of Ext.P-13. Further, the writ petitioners have also raised contentions on the basis of Ext.P-14 Circular dated 30.9.2003 issued by the Devaswom Board Commissioner that payment to be effected to interim vacancies shall be the permissible salary, and allowances applicable to the Karanma post. Be that as it may, the prime and real issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..22..

appellants/respondents in the WP(C) can say that even though the nominees/appointees like the writ petitioners fulfill all the title condition and have satisfied all the requisite formalities for discharging the duties and functions in the abovesaid position of "Karanma Kaisthani Lavanam" of the temple devaswom concerned, and whatever be the nature of the delay at the hands of the Devaswom officials in taking the decision on the approval/appointment process, the regular salary and allowances that can be claimed by those incumbents can be only from the date on which the Devaswom Board authorities would grant approval or formal appointment order in their case.

19. After hearing both sides, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted relief in this case. In the instant case, the Karanma right is admittedly continuing in the family in question. The pleadings in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the WP(C) would clearly show that the main averments set up in the writ petition are correct. The earlier incumbent in the abovesaid position had retired. The then Moopan/Karanavar of the family had made the requisite W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..23..

nomination in the case of the writ petitioners for the period in question mentioned above. All papers were given in the matter and even enquiry reports of the revenue officers have also been duly submitted. After the first writ petitioner had demitted the office, the second writ petitioner was duly nominated/appointed by the Karanavar/Moopan and there is no dispute that the said person who gave the nomination was in fact the senior most member of the family at the relevant time. When, all the conditions are duly satisfied, then there cannot be any doubt that the Devaswom Board authorities cannot sit over those papers and take their own sweet time, and then pass an order in the nature of Ext.P-1 much after the nomination/appointment process, and that too in a case when admittedly, both the writ petitioners have duly discharged their duties and functions in the abovesaid position, and there has been no complaints regarding their functioning from any quarters, including from the Devaswom Board authorities. There is not even a whisper of the case set up by the Devaswom Board authorities that any of the jurisdictional facts as envisaged in Subsection 2 of Section 28 regarding any misdemeanor or W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..24..

inefficiency or negligence, have been shown in the discharge of duties and functions for the two petitioners herein. But, of course, there is a slight dispute inasmuch as the writ petitioners would contend that they stand appointed from the date of nomination submitted by the Moopan/Karanavar. Whereas, the Devaswom Board authorities would contend that the power is for the Commissioner to make appointment and appointment starts only from the issuance of appointment order. For the time being, we would proceed on the premise as if the appointment process has to be duly formalized by the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities. But, once the nomination was made and all the papers were clear and enquiry reports were all favourable to the petitioners, and the Karanma right is in subsistence for the family concerned, and the nominator has full title to make nomination, and the nominees also are members of the family who do not suffer any legal disabilities, then we have no hesitation to hold that the competent authority of the Devaswom Board should take a decision in the matter, atleast within 2 to 3 months from the date of submission of papers in relation to nomination. That, W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..25..

sadly, has not occurred in the instant case. So, the delay on the part of the appellants is highly arbitrary and capricious. The first writ petitioner has served for the period from 30.6.2005 up to 1.11.2013. The second writ petitioner has been serving for the period from 2.11.2013. Ext.P-1 has been issued as late as on 31.8.2016, and that too only in the case of the second writ petitioner. Hence, we are of the view that the first writ petitioner should be duly deemed to have been appointed by the orders of the competent authority of the Devaswom Board, atleast by 1.10.2005, and the second writ petitioner should have been deemed to have been appointed in abovesaid position, atleast from 1.2.2014, ie, expiry of 3 months from the date of the nomination/commencement of duty. This is the only slight modification we can make in respect of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The long arbitrary delay of the Devaswom Board authorities cannot be an excuse to deny the legitimate and lawful rights of the writ petitioners.

20. Consequently, as ordered by the learned Single Judge, the Travancore Devaswom Board authorities have to give the appropriate scale of pay to the first writ petitioner with effect from W.A. No. 305 of 2021 ..26..

1.10.2005 up to 31.10.2013, and for the second writ petitioner for the period from 1.2.2014 onwards. The respective arrears due to the writ petitioners shall be calculated and disbursed to them without any further delay, at any rate within a period of an outer time limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned directions and orders of the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment rendered on 10.10.2019 in WP(C).No.33770/2016 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. So, no substantial grounds have been made out by the appellants to warrant any serious interference with the well considered verdict of the learned Single Judge in this WP(C), except the slight modifications that we have ordered above.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand disposed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court