Karnataka High Court
Sri B V Umashankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53382
WP No. 33622 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 33622 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.V. UMASHANKAR
S/O SRI. VENKATA KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O SRI. ADINARAYANA
ADVOCATE,
NEAR OLD POLICE QUARTERS,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
WORKING AS:
PARUPATTEGAR
SRI. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
NAGALAMADIKE,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SUMA
Location:
HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
KARNATAKA MUZRAI DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560 018.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53382
WP No. 33622 of 2013
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION,
MADHUGIRI-572 132.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.ADM1 CR 1608/2011-12 BANGALORE DATED 7.6.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-AP AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 30.09.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CAV ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.ADM.1.CR.1608/2011- 12, Bengaluru dated 07.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in terms of which he was refused to be granted with the pay scales applicable to a Second Division Assistant. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to -3- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 fix his pay from the date of his eligibility in the scale of Second Division Assistant ('SDA' for brevity) and grant all consequential benefits.
2(i). The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Bill Collector at Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple (henceforth referred to as 'the temple') situate in Nagalamadike, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru, in terms of an order dated 05.07.1993. By an order dated 17.07.1995, the post of Bill collector was re- designated as Parupattegar. By a Government Order dated 04.12.1997, the employees working as Parupattegars who had put in five years as on 01.10.1997 were directed to be continued in the same post.
(ii). The petitioner claims that though no specific order was issued in so far as he was concerned but yet the general Order dated 04.12.1997 referred above applied to him also.
(iii). The petitioner contends that based on certain allegations, he was placed under suspension in terms of an order dated 01.06.2001. An appeal filed before the respondent No.2 against the order of suspension was dismissed. A revision petition in R.P. No.52/2003 (Revenue) filed before the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) was also dismissed on 06.06.2023 with some observations. The petitioner then challenged the said order passed by the K.A.T. before this Court in W.P No.21401/2005. The writ petition was disposed off in terms of an order dated 19.07.2006. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No.2025/2006 was filed by him. In the meanwhile, a resolution dated 30.05.2008 was passed by the Managing Committee exonerating the petitioner of the allegations. Hence, Writ Appeal No.2025/2006 was disposed off on 27.08.2008 directing the respondent No.2 herein to revoke the order of suspension. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner by order dated 25.10.2008. The respondent No.3 then issued a communication dated 12.11.2008 directing the respondent No.4 to take appropriate action pursuant to the official memorandum dated 25.10.2008 issued by the respondent No.2 revoking the suspension of the petitioner.
(iv). The petitioner contends that after he took charge, he was managing the affairs of the temple. He submitted several representations seeking for confirmation of his service. The Managing Committee of the temple also recommended the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 confirmation of the service of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the temple in question had sufficient resources and as per the policy adopted by the Department and in terms of the communication dated 02.09.2006 of the State Government to the respondent No.2, the temple could confirm the services of the petitioner.
(v). He contends that since his claim was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P. No.34897/2009. A coordinate bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 18.03.2010, directed the respondents to consider the representations dated 18.08.2009, 14.08.2009, 12.08.2009 and 03.08.2009 of the petitioner in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The petitioner then placed the orders of this Court before the Managing Committee for appropriate action.
(vi). The Managing Committee of the temple recommended the case of the petitioner for confirmation of service by its letter dated 08.05.2010. The petitioner was following it up by submitting the representation to respondent -6- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 No.2 on 21.11.2010. The petitioner contends that since nothing happened, he was constrained to file C.C.C No.1147/2010 (Civil) accusing the respondents of willfully disobeying the orders of the Court. When the said contempt petition was listed for hearing, the respondent No.2 submitted a memo along with an order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the representations of the petitioner. Consequently, proceedings were dropped in terms of the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 13.01.2011.
3. The petitioner contends that the temple in question has assets valued at more than Rs.10,00,000/- for the purposes of having a post of a SDA. He contends that the budgetary expenses approved by the respondent No.3 on 08.12.2009 would show that the temple was permitted to meet expenses of Rs.9,37,244/- apart from which the temple had several thousands of rupees in fixed deposit from which it was earning interest.
4(i). The petitioner therefore challenged the endorsement dated 12.01.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 herein before this Court in W.P. No.10112/2011 and sought -7- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 direction to the respondents therein to merge his service in the cadre of SDA and extend him the pay scale payable to the SDA in the respondent - Department. The said writ petition was allowed in terms of an order dated 02.01.2012 quashing the endorsement dated 12.01.2011 and remitting the case back to the respondent No.2 herein to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.
(ii). The petitioner was then issued a notice dated 05.03.2012 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, directing him to submit the documents. The petitioner submitted his reply along with the documents which were forwarded to the respondent No.2 in terms of a communication dated 16.04.2012. The respondent No.2 replied vide letter dated 17.05.2012 and sought information from respondent No.3 as mentioned in the said letter. The Tahasildar/respondent No.5 clarified the position and stated about the financial condition of the temple and that if the pay scale of the SDA is extended to the petitioner, the same would not result in expenses going beyond 35% of the income of the temple.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 5(i). He contends that instead of taking action based on the letter of the Tahasildar to the respondent No.3 dated 11.06.2012, a letter similar to the letter dated 17.05.2012 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 was addressed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, to the respondent No.5 on 05.06.2012. He contends that he was requesting the respondent No.1 to extend the pay scale of SDA since the year 1999. He claims that the Tahasildar had already recommended the appointment of the petitioner as SDA and to pay his salary from out of the funds of the temple. Since no action was taken up, the petitioner was again constrained to file C.C.C No.717/2013 accusing the respondents therein of not complying with the order dated 02.01.2012 passed by this Court in W.P No.10112/2011.
(ii). In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the contempt petition, it was stated that the petitioner was called upon to provide information relating to his qualification and that the respondent No.1 had addressed a letter directing the respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioner or to issue a suitable endorsement. He submits that the respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner to extend -9- NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 him the pay scale of SDA in terms of an order dated 07.06.2013. He submits that contemporaneously, the Tahasildar had addressed a letter dated 07.06.2013 to the respondent No.3 stating that if the petitioner is extended the pay scale of SDA, the total expenses would not exceed 35% of the income of the temple.
(iii). The petitioner, therefore, contends that not extending the pay scale of SDA to him by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is thus unjustified, arbitrary and perverse. He contends that the respondent No.2 had by an order dated 31.01.2008, granted the scale of SDA to a person similarly situated as him but when the representation was made by him, the same was referred to the Government seeking information whether the relief should be granted to the petitioner on the ground that this Court had passed the order before the amendment to Rule 8 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules, 2002') came into force. He contends that there is no impediment for granting the pay scale in view of the letters dated 11.06.2012 and 07.06.2013 addressed by the Tahasildar to respondent No.3 opining that extending the pay scale of SDA to the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 petitioner would not result in expenses exceeding 35% of the income of the temple. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 refusing to extend the pay scale of SDA to the petitioner and for a direction to extend the pay scale of SDA to him along with consequential benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002, emoluments of the Archaks and employees of the temple is prescribed. He submits that Parupatthedara is a Group 'C' post and pay scales as mentioned therein were ordered to be extended provided however that the same should not exceed 35% of the total income of the Institution as per proviso under sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, 'the Act, 1997'). He contends that in view of the report of the Tahasildar that extending the pay scale of SDA to the petitioner would not result in the expenses exceeding 35% of the income of the temple, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of pay scale applicable to a SDA. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner should be granted the said benefit. He also invited the attention of the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 Court to a communication dated 31.01.2008 issued by respondent No.2 granting the benefit of the scale of SDA to Mr. D. Ganganna, who was working as a Bill Collector at Lakshminarasimhaswamy temple, Doddadalavatta village, I.D. halli hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District. He, therefore, contends that there is no reason why the benefit of the pay scale of SDA should not be extended to the petitioner.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002 was substituted vide notification No.RD 54 Musev 2017, Bengaluru, dated 17.07.2019. He contends that sub-rule (2)(ii) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules, 2019') mandates that those employees of temple who were receiving temporary salary prior to commencement of the Rules, 2019 shall be fixed a full time salary in the respective scale of pay after commencement of the said Rules. He referred to the proviso to sub-rule (2)(ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2019 and contends that if group 'C' and 'D' employees of temple who are recruited after commencement of the Rules, 2019, have served in the basic pay of the respective posts up
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 to 5 years continuously, then only such employees of temple shall be fixed the full time scale of pay. He also referred to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 and submitted that the temple servants who are in service as on the date of commencement of the Act, 1997 shall continue to receive emoluments which they were receiving and be governed by the conditions of service which were applicable to them, on the date of such commencement till Rules are made in that behalf. He contends that since the petitioner was appointed as a Bill Collector in Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple, Nagalamadike, Pavagada Taluk, on 05.07.1993, he is bound to be continued on the same terms. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the pay scale of a SDA.
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
9. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 05.07.1993 as Bill Collector at Shri Subramanya Swamy temple, in Nagalamadike, an Institution under the control of the Department of Religious and Charitable Endowments. The
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 appointment was for a term of two years. Later, it was extended until further orders in terms of an official memorandum dated 17.07.1995 issued by the respondent No.2. The post of Bill Collector was re-designated as 'Parupattegar'. The State Government in terms of its order dated 04.12.1997, ordered regularization of services of Typists, Parupattedars, Peshkararu, Managers and Clerks, who had completed five years' service as on 01.10.1997, in Institutions governed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. These officials were granted with the pay scale of Rs.1040-1900 along with dearness allowance and other allowances applicable to a SDA in the State Government. However, they were not entitled to any other emoluments. The case of the petitioner for grant of a pay scale applicable to a SDA was under consideration by the respondent No.3 who addressed a letter dated 09.05.2000 to the respondent No.5 directing him to furnish a detailed report to merge the pay scale of the petitioner with the pay scale of a SDA. The petitioner, who was suspended from service in terms of the order of respondent No.3 dated 01.06.2001, was reinstated in the temple vide official memorandum issued by the office of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 respondent No.2 dated 25.10.2008. The petitioner took charge of the post of Parupatthedara at Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple, Nagalamadike on 01.12.2008. The petitioner from the year 2009 and onwards, has been requesting the official respondents herein for sanction of the pay scale applicable to a SDA. The Managing Committee of the temple had also recommended to grant the pay scale applicable to a SDA as the petitioner had completed his SSLC examination and also had rendered service in the temple for more than five years from the date of his initial appointment.
10. In the meanwhile, the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 were framed. Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 provided as follows :
"9. Salary etc., of temple servants who are in service on the date of commencement of the Act.- Temple servants who are in service on the date of commencement of the Act shall continue to receive emoluments which they were receiving and be governed by the conditions of service which were applicable to them, on the date of such commencement till rules are made in that behalf."
and Rule 11 of the Rules, 2002 prescribed the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013
"11. Salary and service conditions of temple servants -(1) The minimum age for appointment of an outdoor temple servant shall be eighteen years and the maximum age limit shall be thirty-five years.
(2) Retirement age of an outdoor temple servant shall be sixty-five years.
(3) Minimum qualification for the posts of temple servants specified in column (2) of the Table below shall be as specified in column (3) thereof.-
TABLE
Sl. Name of the post of temple Qualification
No. servant
(1) (2) (3)
(1) Tantries and Agamika Pass in Praveen Exam
in the concerned
Agama from any
recognised Sanskrit
Patashala
(2)(i) Upadivantha (Vaidhika) Pass in Veda
(Manthra, Veda, Prabhanda, Pravesha exam from
Purana, Jyothishya, Havana) any recognised
Sanskrit Patashala
(ii) Upadivantha (Non-Vaidhika) Qualification not
(Paricharika, Pachaka, required
Sthanika, Joisha, Sripadama,
Srigandha, Kattige, Sevakari)
(3) Parupathedar / Peshka / Pass in S.S.L.C. or
Manager / Bill Collector / equivalent
Receptionist / Shanubog etc., examination
Clerks/Typist
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382
WP No. 33622 of 2013
(4) Attendar / Watchmen / Peon / Pass in 7th standard
Room Boy
(5) Driver / Electrician / Plumber (a) Pass in 7th
Standard and hold a
valid driving licence
for Driver
Pass in Diploma or
equivalent
examination in the
concerned subject for
Electrician and
Plumber
(6) Skilled employee like Minimum qualification
lecturers/ teachers (where the as prescribed by the
institution running school or Education
college) Department
(7) Sweeper / Scavenger / Qualification not
Gardener/ Dhobi / Divatige / required
Bajantri etc.
11. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act, 1997 provided that "the salaries of Archakas and temple servants shall not exceed thirty-five percent of its gross annual income".
12. It appears from a letter addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 bearing No.ADM 1 CR 1608/2011-12 dated 17.05.2012 that the respondent No.2 inter alia sought to provide original certificate regarding petitioner's educational qualification and information as to whether granting the pay scale of a SDA to the petitioner would exceed 35% of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 the income of the temple. In response to this, the respondent No.5 addressed a letter dated 11.06.2012 to the respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner had passed SSLC in the year 1988 and the income of the temple for the year 2011-12 was Rs.19,26,008/- and expenses was a sum of Rs.6,47,702/- and the balance amount lying in the temple was Rs.12,78,306/-. Despite this, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Rules, 2002 was amended and Rule 8 was substituted which prescribed the pay scales payable to the servants of the temple. It was held that as per the substituted Rule 8, the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale applicable to a SDA. Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002, was substituted by a notification No.RD 148 Musevi, 2011 dated 27.01.2012. The relevant portion of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2002 reads as follows:
8. Emoluments of Archaks and Temple Servants .- (1) For the purpose of salary and emoluments of the Archaks and temple servants, classifications of the notified institutions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 shall mutatis mutandis is applicable.
(2) (i) The salary and emoluments of the full time Archaks and temple servants working in the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 notified institutions may be fixed in the following rates, namely.-
Scale of Pay
Designation of the Post Institutions Expansion of
Pay Scale
Category Category
I II
1 Parupatthedara/ 6050- 5500- 6050-150-6650-
Peshkar/Manager/Bill 13000 12200 175-7350-200-
Collector/Receptionist/ 8350-250-9600-
Shanbhog/Clerk 300-10800-350-
/Typist, etc. 12200-400-
13000
13. It is however noticed that in respect of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy temple in Doddadalavatta village, I.D. halli hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, a Bill collector, named Sri D. Ganganna, who was appointed on 22.05.1999, was granted the benefit of the pay scale applicable to a SDA in terms of an order dated 31.01.2008. A communication dated 11.06.2012 preceding the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2, addressed by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.3 shows that the respondent No.5 had informed the latter that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay scale applicable to a SDA. Therefore, it is more than evident that the petitioner who was entitled to pay scale of a SDA along with dearness allowance
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 and other allowances was not granted the benefit though a similarly placed person was granted the said benefit. The petitioner possessed all the qualification for grant of pay scale applicable to a SDA and if the pay scale of a SDA was granted to the petitioner, the expenses did not exceed 35% of the income of the temple. Therefore, there is no reason why the said benefit should not be granted to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, in a letter dated 10.04.2013 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the Secretary of the Revenue Department (Muzrai), it was stated as follows:-
"¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀAE 437 JAEn 93 ¢£ÁAPÀ 04-12-97 gÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ C£ÀħAzsÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀAUÁ«ÄAiÀiÁV JA.Dgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹E PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄdgÁ¬Ä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀÄ / ¥ÁgÀÄ¥ÀvÛÉÃzÁgÀgÀÄ / ¥ÉõÁÌgÀgÀÄ / ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï / UÀĪÀiÁ¸ÀÛgÀÄUÀ½UÉ LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À C«gÀvÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀPÁðj ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ DzÉñÀUÀ¼À°è 5 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À C«gÀvÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. (¥Àæw ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ - ®UÀvÀÄÛ 2)"
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013
14. It is, therefore, apparent that the respondent No.2 was conscious of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of a SDA after completion of five years in the post of Parupatthedara. Therefore, he is entitled to be granted the said benefit.
15. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order bearing No.ADM1.CR.1608/2011- 12, Bengaluru dated 07.06.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 refusing to grant the benefit of pay scale applicable to a Second Division Assistant to the petitioner is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.1040-1900 along with dearness allowance and other allowances with effect from 05.07.1998. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits as applicable to the post of a Second Division Assistant in the department of the respondent No.2, subject to the condition that the salary of Archaks and servants including the petitioner does not exceed 35% of the income of Shri Subramanya Swamy Temple, Nagalamadike, Pavagada Taluk. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any other emoluments. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pay arrears of salary to the petitioner in
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53382 WP No. 33622 of 2013 installments but shall ensure that the salary of Archaks and servants of the temple including the arrears payable to the petitioner does not exceed 35% of the income of the temple in that year.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma