Sree Krishna Upadhyaya and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 2977 OF 2023`** ``` PETITIONERS: ``` ``` 1SREEKRISHNAUPADHYAYA RESIDINGATKRISHNAKRIPA,ROLYA,P.O.MADHUR, - KASARAGODDISTRICT,PIN671124 2VENUGOPALAKALLURAYA RESIDINGATVEENAVIHARAM,P.O.MADHUR,KASARAGOD - DISTRICT,PIN671124 3HARIKRISHNAKALLURAYA RESIDINGATVEENAVIHARAM,P.O.MADHUR, - KASARAGOD-DISTRICT,PIN671124 4DHANANJAYAP.K RESIDINGATPADUKAKKEPPADIHOUSE,P.O.MADHUR, - KASARAGOD,PIN671124 5SREEKRISHNABHAT RESIDINGATCHEKKANIKEHOUSE,PARAKKILA,P.O.MADUR, - KASARAGOD,PIN671124 6PARAMESHWARAADIGA RESIDINGAT'KRISHNAKRIPA',MATTATHODI, - P.O.HIDAYATHNAGAR,KASARAGOD,PIN671123 7NARAYANAKARANTHA RESIDINGATKARODIHOUSE,P.O.MADHUR, - KASARAGOD,PIN671124 ``` W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 2 - `8 SOORYA PRAKASH P.K RESIDING AT VISHWADARSHAN, KODIMAJALU, -` - `P.O.MADHUR, KASARAGOD, PIN 671124` - `9 P.M.INDIRA AGED 63 YEARS RESIDING AT BENAKLA NILAYA, P.O.MADHUR, -` - `KASARAGOD, PIN 671124` ``` 10REKHAC.K RESIDINGATCHENAKKODHOUSE,P.O.HIDAYATHNAGAR, - KASARAGOD,PIN671123 ``` - `11 PARAMESHAWARA ANNAYYA MAYYA RESIDING AT ELLANGALA HOUSE, P.O.MADHUR, -` - `KASARAGOD, PIN 671124` - `12 T.V.BALAKRISHNA NAMBISHAN` ``` RESIDINGATVISHNUVINAYA,KODIMAJALU, - P.O.MADHUR,KASARAGOD,PIN671124 ``` ``` 13MANOJV.M AGED48YEARS RESIDINGATSRIVINAYAKAKRIPA,KODINIAJALU,MADHUR - P.O.,KASARAGOD,PIN671124 ``` ``` 14RAVISHANKAR.C CHENAKKODHOUSE,P.O.HIDAYATHNAGAR,KASARAGOD, - PIN671123 ``` ``` 15T.V.BALAKRISHNA RESIDINGATERIKKALAHOUSE,P.O.PATLA,KASARAGOD, - PIN671124 ``` ``` 16T.V.GANESH RESIDINGATSRIVINAYAKA,MADHUR.P.O.,KASARAGOD, - PIN671124 ``` W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 3 ``` 17MADHAVAMOOLYA GANARAJANILAYA,PARAKKILA,P.O.MADHUR,KASARAGOD, - PIN671124 18GOPALAC.H RESIDINGATCHENAKKODHOUSE,P.O.HIDAYATHNAGAR, - KASARAGOD,PIN671123 BYADVS. K.M.ANEESH K.SANTHOSHKUMAR(KALIYANAM) BIJUVARGHESEABRAHAM SHASHANKDEVAN DILEEPCHANDRAN ADARSHKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYTHESECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT, REVENUEANDDEVASWOMDEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695001 2THECOMMISSIONER MALABARDEVASWOMBOARD,HOUSEFEDCOMPLEX, - ERANJIPALAM.P.O.,KOZHIKODE,PIN673006 3THEASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER MALABARDEVASWOMBOARD,NEARMANDAMPURATHKAVU, - NEELESWARAM,KASARAGOD,PIN671121 4THEEXECUTIVEOFFICER SREEMADANNADHESWARAVINAYAKATEMPLE,MADHURP.O., - KASARAGOD,PIN671124 BYADVMAHESHVRAMAKRISHNAN ``` W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 4 ``` SMT.MARYBEENAJOSEPH,SRGOVERNMENTPLEADER SRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN,SCFORMALABARDEVASWOMBOARD ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR ADMISSIONON21.12.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 5 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners state that they are employees of Shree Madanandheswara Vinayaka Temple, Madhur, situated at Kasaragod. The aforesaid temple is a Special Grade Temple administered and controlled by the Malabar Devaswom Board and pay and allowances of the temple employees are fixed as per the scales fixed by the Government from time to time. They state that some time in the year 1998 though the pay was revised, the consequent benefits were not disbursed to the employees. It is in the said circumstances that a section of employees approached this Court and by judgment dated 25.8.2003 in O.P No.14574 of 1998, this Court had directed the Commissioner to sanction the revised pay. They contend that the 9th pay revision orders were issued by the Government as per G.O(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.02.2011. Though the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefits of pay revision, the same has not been extended to them. 2. They state that being aggrieved by the denial of pay revision W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 6 benefits, a section of the employees have approached this Court and had preferred W.P(C) No.13754 of 2014. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment in **Gopalakrishna Bhat and Others v. State of Kerala and Others** (Neutral Citation No.2015 KER/76) had disposed of the matter ordering that the benefits of G.O(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.2.2011 (Ext.P6 in the said writ petition) be implemented in Shree Madanandheswara Vinayaka Temple within two months. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the benefits of pay revision order was extended to the petitioners in W.P(C) No.13754/2014, the same has not been extended to the petitioners who are also employees and similarly placed as the petitioners in Ext.P8. In the said circumstances, they are stated to have preferred Ext.P9 representation highlighting their grievances. They assert that no decision has yet been taken by the respondents. It is on these assertions that this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing or commanding the respondents to extend the pay revision orders as per GO(P)No.85/2011/Fin dated 26/02/2011 to the petitioners also within a time that may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court. b) issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing or commanding the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P9 representation and to grant the benefit to the petitioners herein from W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 7 the date on which such benefits are given to the writ petitioners in W.P.(c) No. 13754/2014 within a time frame that may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Heard Sri.Shashank Devan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mahesh V Ramakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 4. I find that a section of temple employees attached to the Sri Madanandheswara Vinayaka Temple has approached this Court and by Ext.P8 judgment, the benefits of Ext.P6 Government Order was extended to them. I find from Ext.P9 that the petitioners have already approached the respondents seeking similar benefits. Their grievance is that the benefits extended to the petitioners in Ext.P8 have not been extended to them. I am of the view, in view of Ext.P8 judgment, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefits granted to the petitioners in the judgment to the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the competent among the respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P9 representation and pass orders in the light of G.O(P) No.85/2011/Fin dated 26.2.2011 and in terms of Ext.P8 judgment. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 8 copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with this judgment before the concerned respondent to ensure compliance. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P(C) No.2977 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2977/2023`** ``` PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS: ``` ``` ExhibitP1ATRUETYPEDCOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDBY THECOMMISSIONER,HR&CE NO.ER15/6055/2003/K.DISDATED7/10/2003 ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFORDERNO.A12436/96DATED 15-10-2003 ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFTHELETTERISSUEDBYTHE GOVERNMENTDATED22-12-2007 ExhibitP4ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDBYTHE COMMISSIONER,HR&CEDATED8-1-2008 ExhibitP5THETRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED 23-01-2012GIVENBYTHEPETITIONER ExhibitP6ATRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED 2-02-2012GIVENBYTHE4THRESPONDENTTO 2NDRESPONDENT ExhibitP7ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED25-7-2012 ISSUEDBYTHEGOVERNMENT ``` - `Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-02-2015 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13754/2014.` - `Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS` ``` ExhibitP10THETRUECOPYOFTHEPOSTALACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDEVIDENCINGRECEIPTOFEXHIBITP9 ```