Kerala High Court
M.Suresh vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 2 February, 2012
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/21ST MAGHA 1933
WP(C).No. 3517 of 2012 (L)
---------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
---------------------
M.SURESH,
S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR,
AGED 42, SURESH BHAVAN,
ACHANKOVIL,
KOLLAM NOW WORKING AS DEVASWOM
WATCHER AT ACHANKOVIL DEVASWOM.
BY ADVS. SRI. C.S.MANILAL
SRI. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
SRI. S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT(S) :
------------------------
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE,
TRIVANDRUM- 695 003.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE,
TRIVANDRUM- 695 003.
BY ADV. SRI. G. BIJU , TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
WP(C).No. 3517 of 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE DUTY REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED
2.2.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 7.2.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/ TRUE COPY /.
NA P.A. TO JDUGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 3517 OF 2012
------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Devaswom Watchman posted at the Achankovil Devaswom in Punalur Group of the first respondent. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order by which he has been transferred to Karunagappally Group. According to the petitioner, he was posted at his present place only on 1/6/2011 and, therefore, his transfer within a period of less than one year is submitted to be unnecessary.
2. The annual festival at the Achankovil temple for the year 2011 was conducted during a period 10 days commencing from 17/12/2011. For the smooth conduct of the festival, duties were assigned to the various employees of the temple as per Ext.P1 duty list. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was allotted the duty of manning the counter inside the Sopanam. Apart from the petitioner, there is another watchman by name Radhakrishna Pillai who was allotted the full responsibility of the Kanikavanchies. On the 9th day of the festival one Kanikavanchi W.P.(C). No. 3517 /2011 2 containing cash offerings of the devotees placed in front of the Sub Deities at Ammankavu was found missing. According to the petitioner, Ammankavu is outside the main temple and its compound. Since he was on duty at the counter inside the temple, he had no occasion to attend to the safety of the Kanikavanchi that was found missing. For the above reason, it is contended that the petitioner is totally innocent of the incident in which the Kanikavanchi was found missing. In spite of the above, as per Ext.P2 order the watchers have been transferred to Karunagapally group. It is clear from Ext.P2 that transfers have been effected in connection with the unfortunate incident in which the Kanikavanchi was found missing.
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent. The petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration and disposal of his appeal.
4. I have heard Sri.G.Biju who appears for the first respondent Board. According to the learned counsel, the watchmen are both collectively responsible for the safety of the properties of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner cannot shirk W.P.(C). No. 3517 /2011 3 his responsibility in the matter.
5. I do not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions advanced by the respective counsel. The question as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the loss of Kanikavanchi has to be considered by the first respondent Board while passing final orders on Ext.P3 appeal, in the light of the fact that the petitioner had been specifically alloted some other duty inside the temple, as alleged. Therefore, it is sufficient that this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 expeditiously.
This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P3, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or before relieving the petitioner from his present post as watchman in the Achankovil temple in Punalur Group, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk W.P.(C). No. 3517 /2011 4