K P Vinodkumar vs Guruvayur Devaswom and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.10689 OF 2015(I)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K P VINODKUMAR S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KANNATH HOUSE, IRINGAPPURAM, PUTHENPALLY P.O., TRICHUR- 680103.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE ETC.**| |---|---| ||**GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR- 680101, REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.**| |**2**|**THE ADMINISTRATOR**| ||**GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR- 680101.**| |**3**|**P.RAVEENDARN**| ||**HEAD DRAFTMAN, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,**| ||**GURUVAYOOR- 680101.**| |**4**|**T.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN**| ||**FIRST GRADE OVERSEER,**| ||**GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,**| ||**GURUVAYOOR- 680101.**| |**5**|**T.P.MOHANAKRISHNAN**| ||**FIRST GRADE OVERSEER,**| ||**GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,**| ||**GURUVAYOOR- 680101.**| ||**R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SMT.RENY ANTO**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0209-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).18542/2017(P), THE COURT ON 29-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.18542 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**P.SETHUNATHAN,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 56 YEARS,**| ||**ASSISTANT ENGINEER,**| ||**ELECTRICAL AND WATER SECTION,**| ||**GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR, PIN. 680101,**| ||**RESIDING AT PUTHUVATH HOUSE,NORTH THURAVUR,**| ||**PUTHUKKAD PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**P.RAVEENDRAN**| ||**ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL AND WATER**| ||**SECTION, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,GURUVAYUR PO,**| ||**PIN.680101,RESIDING AT SREELAKAM HOUSE,**| ||**KARAKKAD, GURUVAYOOR PO.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)**| ||**SRI.S.ABHILASH**| ||**SRI.PRATHEESH.P**| ||**SMT.RENY ANTO**| ||**SRI.K.SIJU**| ||**SMT.S.SEETHA**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR PO, PIN. 680101.** W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 3 - **2 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001.** - **3 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYUR PO, PIN. 680101.** - **4 ADMINISTRATOR GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR PO,PIN. 680101.** - **5 DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT,GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOREXAMINER OF LOCAL FUND AUDITS LOCAL FUND AUDIT, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GURUVAYUR PO, PIN. 680101.** - **7 K.P VINOD KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS** - **S/O PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KANNATH HOUSE, IRINGAPPURAM, PUTHENPALLY P.O., THRISSUR680103.** **R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R2, R5-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM** **R7 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10689/2015(I), THE COURT ON 29-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 4 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ WP(C).10689/2015, WP(C).18542/2017 ]** **Dated this the 29[th] day of January 2020** 1. W.P.(C).No.10689 of 2015 is filed challenging Exhibit P3 decision of the Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, as also Exhibit P4 proceedings of the 2[nd] respondent to the extent to which it promotes the 3[rd] respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Electrical & Water Department of the 1[st] respondent. A further prayer is sought to revert the 3[rd] respondent and to promote the petitioner to the said post w.e.f. 24.2.2015. 2. The parties and documents are being referred to as in W.P. (C).No.18542 of 2017 for the sake of convenience and clarity 3. W.P.(C).No.18542 of 2017 is filed challenging Exhibits P24, P27, P32, P33, P36 and P37 orders and seeking a declaration that the appointments of the petitioners to the posts of Second Grade Overseer, First Grade Overseer, Head Draftsman and W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 5 Assistant Engineer were made before the amendment to the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations in 2015 and are legal and valid. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C).No.18542/2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10689/2015 (Additional 7[th] respondent in W.P. (C).No.18542/2017), the learned standing counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C).No.18542 of 2017 contends that the 1[st] petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.5.2017 and the 2[nd] petitioner on 30.4.2018, while working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Water Section, Guruvayur Devaswom). It is stated that they were appointed as Assistant Lineman on 30.5.1985. It is stated that the petitioners were promoted as Second Grade Overseers by Exhibit P9 proceedings and pay fixation benefits were allowed to them. They were later promoted to the post W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 6 of First Grade Overseer by Exhibit P11 proceedings dated 17.11.2005. Thereafter, selection was conducted for appointment as Head Draftsman and a select list was prepared. The 1[st] petitioner was appointed as Head Draftsman by Exhibit P14 proceedings dated 25.5.2013. Thereafter the first petitioner was further appointed as Assistant Engineer pursuant to a selection and interview conducted on 27.6.2013. By Exhibit P17 order dated 5.6.2015, his probation was also declared to have been successfully completed. The 2[nd] petitioner was also subjected to a selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer and was promoted to a post by Exhibit P20 proceedings. His probation was also declared to have been satisfactorily completed by Exhibit P21 order dated 6.7.2016. 6. It is stated that a notice was served on the 1[st] petitioner appending an audit objection that the promotion to the post of Second and First Grade Overseer and Assistant Engineer was without acquiring test qualification and that the promotions were illegal. The 1[st] petitioner submitted Exhibit P23 W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 7 representation. In response to the application by the 2[nd] petitioner, the 2[nd] petitioner was served with Exhibit P24 photocopy of the Audit Objection addressed to the Director Local Fund Audit Department. In reply to the audit objection, the 1[st] petitioner submitted Exhibit P25 representation. The Devaswom also submitted Exhibit P26 reply to the audit objection. However, by Exhibit P27 letter, the petitioners were informed by the Devaswom Commissioner that the promotion to the post of Second Grade Overseer itself was found to be without the prescribed qualifications and that their further promotions could not be regularised. By Exhibit P28, the 1[st] petitioner was informed that fixation of pay in the promoted post can be finalized only after the question with regard to irregular promotion is finalized. The petitioners rely on Exhibit P28 (a) to (c) documents to contend that pension and retirement benefits were disbursed to Balakrishnan A.M, who also did not possess the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 8 7. It is submitted that the Guruvayur Devaswom Act empowers the Managing Committee to do all such things as may be incidental and conducive to the efficient management of the affairs of the Devaswom and the convenience of worshipers. It is further submitted that Section 8 provides that no proceedings of the Committee shall be invalidated by reason of any irregularity in the procedure of the Committee not affecting the merits of the case. The Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 categorises the posts to which the regulations apply. It is contended that Regulation 5(c) provides that the Managing Committee shall decide the method of appointment in the case of temporary posts created as and when required. It is stated that the posts of Assistant Electrical Engineer, First Grade Overseer, Assistant Lineman and Helper were new temporary posts created by resolution of the Managing Committee dated 9.10.1984 and that the Regulations do not apply to such posts. It is stated that posts of Second Grade Overseer were later created and the qualification for the post were also fixed by Exhibit P7 resolution dated 25.10.1987. It is contended that the said W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 9 action of the Committee has been considered in Exhibit R1(b) judgment. It is stated that the qualifications prescribed in Exhibit P7 are in accordance with Exhibit P8 Special Rules for the Kerala General Engineering Subordinate Service and that the petitioners who had the required qualifications were entitled to the appointments granted to them. It is stated that since appointments had been made after due selection, they cannot be recalled at a later point in time. It is further contended that persons who did not possess the Diploma in Electrical Engineering were being promoted to the posts of First Grade Overseer and Assistant Engineers and their appointments had been approved without any objection from the Local Fund Audit. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioners are not liable to be discriminated against. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that the reliance placed on the audit report to deny benefits of promotion already granted was illegal and unjustified. It is contended that Section 23 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act provides that the accounts of the Devaswom audit shall be W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 10 subject to concurrent audit. Section 25 refers to the contents of the Audit Report. Rule 17 of the Guruvayur Devawom Rules provides that the audit shall be conducted by the Examiner of the Local Fund Accounts. It is stated that the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994 is enacted to regulate the audit of the local funds under the management or control of certain local authorities in the State and that the Guruvayur Devaswom is not a local authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the said Act. It is stated that the 'auditor' as defined is authorised to perform functions only in respect of matters specified in Section 25(1) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and that appointment and promotions made by the committee are outside the purview of the provisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act and that therefore the audit objection raised is completely untenable. It is stated that the auditor cannot exercise supervisory power over the management and sit in appeal over the decisions of the Managing Committee taken in exercise to its administrative power. W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 11 9. It is further stated that the amendments to the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations 1983 had come into force only on 18.4.2017 by Exhibit P30 and that the said amendments have no application to the petitioners since their appointments were made long before the said date. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, notices were issued for reverting the petitioners as Second Grade Overseers by Exhibit P32 and P33. Though the petitioners had submitted Exhibit P34 and P35 representations, Exhibit P36 and P37 orders had been issued reverting the petitioners as Second Grade Overseers. It is contended that the orders of reversion passed after the retirement of the petitioners is completely untenable and cannot affect their rights for retirement benefits on the basis of the pay of the promotion posts held by them. - 10.The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Xavier v. Kerala State Electricity Board [1979 KLT 80 (F.B.)] and of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. A.N.Gupta and others [(1997) 8 SCC 60], B.J. Shelat v. State of W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 12 Gujarat and others [AIR 1978 SC 1109], Aleyamma Varghese v. Secretary, General Education Department [2007 (3) KLT 700 (SC)] to contend that recovery is not possible against an employee after retirement. The decisions in R. Dalmia v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [AIR 1977 SC 988] and Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and others [(2014) 11 SCC 288] are relied on to contend that the provisions of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act would not empower the Auditor to raise objections with regard to appointments made pursuant to competent decision by the Administration Committee. 11. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 1,3, and 4. It is stated that the petitioners had passed SSLC and ITI (Electrical Trade) National Trade Certificate and are not qualified for promotion to the post of First Grade Overseer, Head Draftsman or Assistant Engineer in accordance with the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983. It is stated that appointments to all posts, temporary or permanent, come within the ambit of the W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 13 Regulations and contentions to the contrary are completely misconceived. It is stated that specific qualifications had been prescribed in the Regulations for each post. It is stated that the exemption on attaining 50 years of age is available only from the departmental test qualifications and that there is no provision whatsoever to grant exemption from a basic qualification. It is contended that the State Audit Department is empowered to consider all aspects of administration and expenditure in terms of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act and that the audit objections raised are well within jurisdiction. It is stated that this Court by its judgment dated 5.8.1999 in O.P.No.15832 of 1993 [Exhibit R1(b)] had held that the relaxation of qualifications to favour individual workers was completely unjustified and that promotions are liable to be granted strictly in accordance with the regulations. It is therefore contended that the promotions granted after the date of Exhibit R1(b) without complying with the regulations were clearly illegal and would confer no benefits on the persons so erroneously promoted. W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 14 - 12.A reply affidavit is also placed on record, wherein it is contended that since the petitioners have already retired from service, orders of reversion and re-fixation of pay cannot be done at this distance of time by the respondents. - 13.The 7[th] respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record contending that he had all the required qualifications to the post of Assistant Engineer and was entitled for promotion in preference to the petitioners, who where unqualified in terms of the regulations. He had also raised objections to their appointments, it is contended. - 14.I have considered the contentions advanced. The Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 provides for concurrent audit of the accounts. After completion of the audit, the auditor is to send a report to the Commissioner. Section 25 reads as follows:- - “25.Contents of audit report (1) The auditor shall specify in his report all cases or irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or of failure to recover moneys or other property due to the Devaswom or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof, caused by neglect or misconduct. W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 15 (2) The auditor shall also report on such other matters relating to the accounts as may be prescribed, or on which the Commissioner may require him to report.” 15.Section 26 provides for rectification of defects disclosed in the audit. Rule 17 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board Rules, 1980 provides that audit of accounts shall be conducted by the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts. The Deputy Director of the Kerala State Audit Department has been designated as the Examiner of the Local Fund Audit by competent orders of the Government. The power of the Auditor in terms of the Act is to examine and report on cases of irregular, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover moneys or other properties due to Devaswom or of loss or waste of money or other property thereof caused by neglect or misconduct. Irregular appointments made to posts under the Devaswom which are governed by specific regulations are nothing but irregular improper payments and wasteful expenditure caused by neglect. The contention raised by the petitioner that appointments and promotions are outside the scope of an audit in terms of the Act is completely untenable in view of the fact W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 16 that irregular appointments also involve improper and wasteful expenditure. 16.The power of the Managing Committee under Section 10(g) of the Act cannot extend to acting in violation of the provisions of the Act or the Regulations framed there under. It is not in dispute before me that the Regulations were amended in 2015. Even going by Exhibit P7, the qualification for appointment to the post of First Grade Overseer was a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or certificate after a two year course. The petitioners have no case that they possess the said qualifications. It is on granting exemption from the basic qualification that the petitioners had been promoted to the post of First Grade Overseer and Assistant Engineer. In the above view of the matter, the contention raised that the petitioners had the qualification prescribed by Exhibit P8 cannot be accepted. There was also no contention that Exhibit P8 special rules have been made applicable to the posts under the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, which were subject to specific regulations. In the above view of the matter, the contentions W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** raised on the petitioner as against Exhibit P24 are unsustainable. 17.Ext.P24, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.18542/2017, is an audit objection raised with regard to the appointment of the petitioners. Ext.P27 is a communication dated 21.7.2016 issued from the Office of the Devaswom Commissioner to the petitioners informing that promotion given to them were found to be illegal and that their objections could not be considered. Exts.P32 and 33 are notices dated 30.8.2017 proposing to cancel the promotions granted to the petitioners and reverting them to the post of Second Grade Overseer, while Ext.P37 is an order dated 5.10.2018 reverting the petitioners. The petitioners had first approached this Court on 2.6.2017. The contention raised against Exhibit P37 is that they had retired on superannuation on 31.5.2017 and 30.4.2018 respectively and that as such, an order of reversion could not have been issued against them, after their retirement. W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 18 18. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I notice that the audit objection had been raised prior to the retirement of the petitioners. The petitioners' objection against the same were found to be unsustainable. Exhibit R1(b) judgment of a Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to the qualifications prescribed for promotions to the post of Second Grade Overseer in the Electrical and Water Works department in the Guruvayur Devaswom. It was directed that the Administrator and the Commissioner, at least hereafter strictly adhere to the Regulations and the Act and the Rules and make appointments only in accordance with the same. The promotions of the petitioners to the post of First Grade Overseers and to further higher posts have admittedly been made after the date of Exhibit R1(b) judgment. With regard to the post of Assistant Engineer, the promotion of the 2[nd] petitioner had been specifically challenged by the 7[th] respondent by filing W.P.(C).No.10689 of 2015. It is stated that the pay fixation benefits due to them had not been granted to them due to the pendency of the audit objection with regard to their promotions. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 19 of the opinion that Exhibits P24, P27, P32 and P33 are perfectly legal and valid. The contention raised against these proceedings are liable to be repelled. 19.However, it is true that the petitioners, who had already retired from service could not have been reverted after their retirement. This may not be of consequence in view of the fact that the pay fixation in the promoted posts of Assistant Engineer were not effected in the petitioners' case. The petitioners claim monetary benefit of orders of promotion which are subsequently found to be illegal and invalid especially in view of the fact that the promotion of the second petitioner as Assistant Engineer stood specifically challenged before this Court at the instance of an employee who claimed to be duly qualified. It is to be noticed that though promotions to the post of First Grade Overseer were granted to the petitioners in the year 2005, pay fixations have not been granted. At the time of promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer, objections had been raised. The petitioners would not be entitled to fixation of pay in the post of W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 20 First Grade Overseer and Assistant Engineer in view of the fact that their promotions had been held under objection. 20.In the result Exhibits P24, P27, P32 and P33 are upheld. Exhibit P37 and further proceedings pursuant thereto are set aside. However, it is made clear that the pay and pensionary benefits due to the petitioners shall be calculated on the basis of the pay fixations already granted to them and without taking note of promotions effected without complying with the prescription of qualifications by the regulations. The petitioners shall not be entitled for any fixation of pay which had not already been granted to them prior to Exhibit P24 audit objection. In view of the discussions above, the prayers sought for in W.P.(C).No.10689 of 2015 are liable to be allowed. Exhibits P3 and P4 so far as they relate to the 3[rd] respondent are set aside. Since the 3[rd] respondent retired from service before W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 **==> picture [12 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** orders of reversion were issued by the competent authorities, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to make appointments to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) strictly in accordance with the seniority and suitability, taking note of the qualifications prescribed in the regulations. Sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 22 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10689/2015** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT-P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/6/2013** **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT-P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/5/2014. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT-P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/2/2015 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT-P4: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/02/2015.** W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 23 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18542/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.70 DATED 9.10.1984.** **EXHIBIT P2 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.1985. EXHIBIT P3 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.5.1985. EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.3 DATED 3.4.1986. EXHIBIT P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.6.1986. EXHIBIT P6 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.1986. EXHIBIT P7 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.126 DATED 25.10.1987. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA ENGINEERING SUBORDINATE SERVICE SPECIAL RULES. EXHIBIT P9 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.11.1987. EXHIBIT P10 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.6.1989. EXHIBIT P11 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2005. EXHIBIT P12 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.9.2012. EXHIBIT P13 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.94 DATED 23.5.2013.** W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 24 - **EXHIBIT P14 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.5.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P15 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.6.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P16 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.6.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P18 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.1.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P19 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.2.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P21 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2016. EXHIBIT P22 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE DATED 12.4.2016 ALONG WITH PARAGRAPH 3-10 OF THE AUDIT REPORT.** - **EXHIBIT P23 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OF REPRESENTTATION ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.6.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P24 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT DATED 4.10.2014 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 10.8.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P25 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.10.2015 OF THE 1ST PETITONER.** **EXHIBIT P26 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 05.4.2016 OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.** 25 W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 - **EXHIBIT P27 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.7.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 11.4.2017. EXHIBIT 28A A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THEH DEPUTY EXAMINER, AUDIT.** - **EXHIBIT P28(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXAMINER , AUDIT.** - **EXHIBIT P28(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHOWING APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.** - **EXHIBIT P29 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OF THE LETTER DATED 19.11.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P30 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE OF THE NOTE DATED 18.4.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P31 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERMNET ORDER GO(P) NO.145/2006/FIN.DATED 25-03-2006** - **EXHIBIT P32 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-082017 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P33 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTICAL NOTICE SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 3008-2017** - **EXHIBIT P34 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P35 a true copy of the representation submitted the 2nd petitioner** - **EXHIBIT P36 A PHOTOCOY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-102018 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 16-10-2018** - **EXHIBIT P37 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-102018 SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 16-10-2018** 26 W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 **EXHIBIT P38 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION TENDERED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER, FURNISHED TO SRI. T.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, HEAD DRAFTSMAN, ELECTRICAL AND WATER SECTION, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P31 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT GOVERMENT ORDER AND ANNEXURE-3** - **EXHIBIT P32 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-082017 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P33 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTICAL NOTICE SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 3008-2017** - **EXHIBIT P34 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P35 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P36 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-102018 SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 16-102018** - **EXHIBIT P37 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5-122018 SERVED ON THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 16-10-2018** - **EXHIBIT P38 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION TENDERED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEVASWOM ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER FURNISHED TO sRI. t.k. gOPALAKRISHNAN, HEAD DRAFTSMAN, ELECTRICAL AND WATER SECTION, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,** 27 W.P.(C).Nos.10689/15 & 18542/17 **EXHIBIT P39** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DIS.111/87/GDC DATED 26/8/987 OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R6(A)** **TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. R1/7652/34 DATED 11/8/36** **EXHIBIT R6(B)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES REGULATION** - **EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES REGULATION** - **EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 10-03-2006** - **EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05-0899 IN OP nO. 15832/1993** - **EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PAY REVISION ORDER DATED 25-03-2006** - **EXHIBIT R6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-4-2016** - **EXHIBIT R6(H) A COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ACT.** - **EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.4 DATED 7.11.2005.** - **EXHIBIT R1(b)** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.15382 OF 1993 DATED 5.8.1999.** **True copy** **PS to Judge**