Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The first respondent, by G.O.Ms.346, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 1.10.1992, decided to sanction pension of Rs.300 per mensem to those archakas who had retired from service on attaining the age of 60 and who had served for over 20 years in any of the temples in Tamil Nadu. It is mentioned in the Government Order that the institution of Archakas literally means those who have traditionally inherited the reciting of Vedas and Agamas in the sanctum sanctorum of the temples at Kalapoojas and who have the proficiency and rich experience in reciting Vedas and Agamas and conducting various yagams, homams, and kumbabishekams. It is mentioned in the Government Order that the Government has decided to grant pension in order to preserve, protect and promote the tradition of archakas and to give encouragement to the persons who have been carrying on this ancient, lofty tradition. A scheme was formulated and termed as Tamil Nadu archakas Pension Scheme, 1992 thereinafter referred to as the Pension Scheme, 1992 and in terms of Rule 4 of the said Scheme, a Sanction Committee has to be constituted and the second respondent as the Chairman is to receive application in the prescribed format and sanction the same. The applications were to be routed through the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners concerned. The scheme has also laid down the powers of the Sanction Committee, the eligibility for pension, the amount of pension, withholding and cancellation of pension and method of payment among other things. It is further stated that in the first instance, the Scheme was to be implemented to 500 archakas (300 Archakas who had worked in Siva Temples and 150 Archakas who had worked in Vaishnavite temples). By proceedings dated 26.4.1993 of the second respondent, 500 Archakas were selected and given pension. Out of 500, 75 archakas were from Tirunelveli Kattabomman District. Taking clue from this Government Order, the Tamil Nadu Village temple poojaries Peravai represented to the Government that they should also be paid monthly pension on their retirement. By G.O.Ms.334, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, dated 9.9.1996 the first respondent sanctioned pension to 1500 village temple poojaries. This order did not give any specific reason as to why pension was being sanctioned to village temple poojaries, while thus sanctioning the pension to Archakas and village temple poojaries, the Government had failed to consider the claims of the other employees of the temples who are members of the petitioner/Sangam. These employees discharge vital duties and in fact the good and efficient administration of a temple is as a result of the combined effort of all the employees - Archakas, poojaries, parisaragars, general assistants, florists etc. In fact in the absence of Archakas, parisaragars take over the functions as they also possess knowledge in vedas and the chanting of mantras and sastras. When such is the position, it is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory to deny the relief of pension to the other members of the petitioner/Sangam. The members of the petitioner/Sangam are full time servants of the temple. Their posts are permanent and substantive. The temples in which they are working are under the control of the second respondent and are bound by the directions issued by the first respondent. They satisfy all the basic tests for being entitled to pension in Government Service, namely, emoluments are paid by the Government, they are permanent employees, and they are appointed by the Government permanently. The only difference between the members of the petitioner/Sangam and the government servants is that the appointments of the members of the petitioner/Sangam are under the control of the second respondent, but, even then, the second respondent is bound by the directions issued by the first respondent, though the funds are to be drawn from the temple sources. The Government in G.O.Ms.318, Education Department, dated 9.2.1977 sanctioned retirement benefits to the staff of the Tamil Nadu Iyal Isai Nadaga Mandram and the Tamil Nadu Ovium Nunkalai Kuzhu employees. There was no justifiable reason as to why the members of the petitioner/Sangam were denied the benefits. The second petitioner, who was working as Parisaragar in Ambasamudram, by representation dated 10.8.1996 requested the second respondent to sanction pension. However, this application was rejected by the second respondent by proceedings No.78013/96-II, dated 10.10.1996 slating that the Government have sanctioned pension only to Archakas, odhuvars, musicians and those who perform Devaparayanam and no pension is payable to parisaragars and other employees of the temple. This order is being impugned in the writ petition.

4. A counter has been filed in the writ petition by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Endowment Department, representing the first respondent and the counter is common for both the respondents. The contents of the counter are as follows:

From the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of the Act, it would be clear that all temple employees including the members of the petitioner/Sangam are only under the control of the Trustees of the respective temples and they are not government servants. It is not correct to state that the members of the petitioner/Sangam who claimed to be servants of the various temples are full time employees of the temples. Except the duties attached to the posts, such as Archakas and odhuvars, the duties attached to the other employees have no religious sanctity. The duties of parisaragars are merely of a menial nature, such as lighting the deepam, cleaning the Moolasthanam, fetching the water from the river, giving theertham to the devotees, opening and closing the doors, etc. An Archakar to whom the pension is given under the Special Scheme is required to be a person, who should have rich experience in reciting vedas, agamas etc. in temples and who should have been recognised and accepted as Archakars by the general public and only such a person is entitled to the pension under the Pension Scheme, 1992. None of the employees mentioned in para 2 of the petition, except Archakas, can be said to have been recognised and accepted as Archakas by the general public. The Sanction Committee, constituted under clause 4 of the Pension Scheme, 1992 consisting of experts, has to select the eligible Archakas for grant of pension after scrutinising the applications.
As regards the payment to the employees of the temple, it is to be noted that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the prior approval of the second respondent. The appointing authority for the employees of the temple is only the Trustee of the respective temples and no statutory approval of the respondent is necessary for such appointments. The decision by the Government to grant pension to Archakas, odhuvars and village poojaries under special scheme is only to preserve, protect and promote the institution of Archakas and odhuvars, who had traditionally inherited the reciting of vedas and agamas or singing of ancient Tamil devotional songs in the temples with their purely acquired skill. There is also no master and servant relationship between the temple employees on the one hand and the respondents on the other so as to compel the latter to pay them the pension. The respondents are not legally bound under the Act or any other law to pay pension to the employees of the temple, who are members of the first petitioner/Sangam. The grant of pension to Archakas and odhuvars is pursuant to the policy by the Government in view of the special merits of those persons. There is no legal right vested to insist for the payment of pension to the members of the petitioner/Sangam and there is no corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondents for issue of a mandamus. The payment of pension to Archakas, odhuvars and village temple poojaries is given from the government funds and not from the funds of the temple in which those persons had served. Though it is termed as pension, in actual practice it is an ex-gratia granted in appreciation of their service, which is to stand as an incentive to their future generation in carrying over the traditional treasures by heritage without being abandoned. These persons form a distinct class by themselves entirely different from the other employees. The concept of Article 14 of the Constitution in that equals cannot be treated with unequals and unequals cannot be treated as equals.
The service conditions of the members of the petitioner/Sangam are governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). The State Service Rules define Ulthurai Servants and Outdoor Servants. The pay and emoluments of the petitioner/Sangam are as contemplated under Rules 14 of the Service Rules and the payment of gratuity on retirement is as contemplated under Rule 26 and the Provident Fund is paid under Rules 32. Except for classification, broadly as Ulthurai and outdoor, there is no further dichotomy prescribed under the Rules to enable the archakas to be given a special privilege among the category of Ulthurai Servant. It is not correct to state that the duties of the members of the petitioner/Sangam do not have any sanctity attached to the posts. In the absence of any special classification under the Rules as regards the Archakas, undoubtedly, the Archakas Pension Scheme is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Archakas are in indigent circumstances. The other servants are also in similar circumstances, finding it difficult to have means of support. Statutory approval is required in respect of appointments made in temple service. In fact, one Chandrasekara Pattar was terminated from service by an order dated 28.10.1997 by the Executive Officer of Sri Kasinatha Swami Temple, Ambasamudram, solely on the ground that a statutory approval had not been obtained from the second respondent prior to appointment. Even the Trustees of the temple are appointed by the department for a limited period. Pongal Bonus is given to the members of the petitioner/Sangam based on the direction of the second respondent. The Government also pay a sum of Rs.60,000 to the family of a person dying in harness as it is done in the cases of other government servants. It cannot be said that merely because the decision to grant pension to archakas, odhuvars and village temple poojaries is a policy decision, there can be immunity for the same being challenged. The classification sought to be brought about in the case of archakas, odhuvars and village poojaries is one which is not contemplated under the Rules. The fact that the first respondent has granted pension to staff of Tamil Nadu Iyal Isai Nadaga Mandram and Tamil Nadu Ovia Nunkalai Kuzhu would show that the action of the respondents is not based on reasonable classification. The term used is pension and it is not open to the respondents to say that it is ex-gratia payment. The distinction made is unreasonable and based on no intelligible differentia. In fact, some of the persons given pension are daily rated employees. When it is admitted by the respondents that the village poojaries are not mandatorily required to possess vedic knowledge, it would show that the grant of pension to the village temple poojaries is without any basis and therefore unreasonable, in case, this Court accepts the claim of the petitioner/Sangam, the same has to be extended to all the employees of the temples and it is not correct to state that the same will affect the generality of Temple Servants Rules applicable to all the temple employees working in the temples all over Tamil Nadu.