Lakshmanan M.V. v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon. Justice Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-08-29
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is ordered accordingly. The court directs that, if the petitioner makes an appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent under Section 18 of the Act, it shall be considered with notice to the petitioner and to respondents 4 and 5. The 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders within one month from the date the petitioner approaches, after due consideration of the contention that the petitioner was in service from 01/09/2021 and that his regularisation was denied due to not forwarding his name in the establishment schedule.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions for a Section 18-based reconsideration by the 2nd respondent, including notice to relevant parties and a one-month time frame for issuing orders after representation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lakshmanan M.V.

Respondents

Malabar Devaswom Board (represented by its Commissioner)
The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board
The Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board
Executive Officer, Sree Mahadeva Kshethra Samithi, Mattannur
Sree Mahadeva Kshethra Samithi, Mattannur (Reg. No. 27/1972)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. A. Aruna

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Mahesh V Ramakrishnan
• Adv. Sri. Ashwin Sathyanath
• R. Lakshmi Narayan – Senior Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P5, a termination order issued against Lakshmanan M.V., who was appointed on 01.09.2021 as Manager of the Kailas Auditorium attached to the Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram. The petitioner asserts that administration of the temple was taken over by the Malabar Devaswom Board pursuant to Ext.P2 (29.07.2021 OA order by the 2nd respondent) and that his post was regularised as part of the temple establishment, entitling him to regularisation and inclusion in the schedule of establishment with consequent pay and allowances. Ext.P5 contends the petitioner’s services were not regularised because his name was not forwarded in the schedule of establishment. The respondents counter that the issue of regularisation falls under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and that the petitioner’s name was not included in the Schedule of Establishment (Ext.R4(c)) though 15 posts were sanctioned and regularised for others. On hearing, the Court directed that the matter be considered by the 2nd respondent under Sec. 18, with notice to the petitioner and 4th/5th respondents, and that the petitioner file a representation supported by this judgment for the 2nd respondent’s decision within one month. The order leaves the ultimate relief to be decided by a statutory reconsideration rather than granting immediate relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends appointment as Manager of the Kailas Auditorium from 01.09.2021, followed by take-over of temple administration by the Board. Ext.P5 terminates his services on the ground that his post was not regularised; the petitioner seeks certiorari to quash Ext.P5 and mandamus to reinstate him as a regular employee with all benefits, and to include his name in the establishment schedule with regularization.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext.P5 challenges are to be addressed before the Commissioner under Sec. 18 of the Act. The petitioner’s name was not included in Ext.R4(c) Schedule of Establishment, though 15 posts were sanctioned and other employees were regularised; consequently, the termination was warranted, and regularisation should be sought through proper statutory channels.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** LAKSHMANAN M.V. AGED 59 YEARS MANAGER, KAILAS AUDITORIUM, SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE, MATTANNUR P.O, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670 702 AGED 59 YEARS, S/O KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, 'MAYOORAM', PARIYARAM P.O, KOLARI 670702 (VIA) MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,KERALA, PIN - 670702 BY ADV A.ARUNA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006 2 THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006 4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE MAHADEVA KSHETHRA SAMITHI MATTANNUR P.O, KANNUR DIST., PIN - 670702 5 SREE MAHADEVA KSHETHRA SAMITHI MATTANNUR, REG. NO. 27/1972, MATTANNUR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT C.H. MOHANDAS, S/O THE LATE C.M. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SREENIKETH', MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670702 BY ADVS. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2022 ## - This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P5 as unjust, illegal, arbitrary, violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and ultra vires to the provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Manager of the Kailas Auditorium, Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram under the 1[st] respondent as a regular hand and he is entitled to get an enhancement of pay as it is given to others as evident from Ext.P9 and that his name is entitled to be included in the schedule of establishment of Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram with consequential benefits as per law. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to continue in service and to reinstate the petitioner in service with no service break as a regular employee with all benefits due to a regular employee including pay and allowances. iv. To declare that the petitioner's post i.e. Manager of the Kailas Auditorium is liable to be sanctioned by the 1[st] respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 are liable to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the said post as a regular hand and to include his name in the schedule of establishment of the Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram with consequential reliefs as per law. WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 4 v. To issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction the petitioner's post i.e. Manager of the Kailas Auditorium and to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the said post as a regular hand and to include his name in the schedule of establishment of the Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram with consequential reliefs as per law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed as Manager in the Kailas Auditorium of the Mattannur Mahadeva Kshethram on 1/9/2021 by the 5[th] respondent. The administration of the temple was taken over by the 1[st] respondent pursuant to Ext.P2 order dated 29/9/2021. Ext.P5 order was served on the petitioner terminating the services on the ground that his services had not been regularised by the Board. The petitioner challenges the above order and seeks a regularization in service as has been done in the case of all other employees, who were in service as on the date of WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 5 Ext.P2. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 4[th] respondent, admitting that the petitioner had been appointed as Manager of the auditorium attached to the temple on 1/9/2021. It is contended that the petitioner is a retired Co-operative Bank employee and that his date of retirement from the Society was on 31/5/2021. It is further submitted that the 2[nd] respondent had sanctioned 15 posts in the temple and the persons working in those 15 posts had been included in the schedule of establishment by Ext.R4(c) order. It is stated that all employees of the temple at the time of take over had been regularised and their names had been included in the schedule of establishment. However, since the petitioner's name was not included in Ext.R4(c), his services had to be terminated. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is only because the petitioner's name was not forwarded along with the list of employees that the petitioner services were not regularised and his name was not included in the schedule of WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 6 establishment. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in view of the fact that the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 and contends that the is entitled to regularization of his appointment as Manger of the Auditorium, the issue is to be raised before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentMalabar Devaswom Board also, I am of the opinion that the issue requires a consideration at the hands of the 2[nd] respondent. There will accordingly be a direction that in case the petitioner approaches the 2[nd] respondent with an appropriate representation, the same shall be considered with notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5. The contention that the petitioner had been working as Manager in the Auditorium w.e.f 1/9/2021 and that it was only because the 4[th] respondent had not forwarded his name along with the names of the other employees that the benefit of regularisation was denied to the petitioner shall be also be duly WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 7 considered by the 2[nd] respondent while passing orders. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date on which the petitioner approaches the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner shall file the representation along with a copy of this judgment before the 2[nd] respondent and serve a copy of the representation on the 4[th] respondent. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** ska WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23336/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE RECORD OF THE| ||PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P1 (a)|TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||01.09.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE| ||PRESIDENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 IN OA| ||NO. 1 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. J2/4597/2021/MDB| ||DATED 08.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4|TRUE A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FORM XI,| ||REGISTER OF WAGES ALONG WITH TYPED COPY| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||02.07.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P6|A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MUSTER| ||ROLL OF THE KAILAS AUDITORIUM MATTANNUR| ||TOGETHER WITH TYPED COPY| |Exhibit P7|COPY OF THE SERVICE RECORD OF SRI. N.P.| ||SASEENDRAN ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SALARY OF THE| ||12 EMPLOYEES OF THE TEMPLE DATED 06.05.2022| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE SALARY OF THE| ||12 EMPLOYEES OF THE TEMPLE DATED 08.06.2022| ||ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| WP(C) NO. 23336 OF 2022 9 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(a) The representation submitted by A.K.M Damodaran to the Executive officer Exhibit R4(b) Order issued by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board Exhibit R4(c) Schedule of Establishment issued by the 3rd respondent