IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29574 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOODIRI S/O.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOODIRI,PAZHAYIDATHUMANA AGED 35 YEARS, CHERPPU WEST PO, TRICHUR DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS MELSANTHI OF PERUVAM TEMPLE. BY ADV. MR. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT. AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THIRUVANCHIKULAM COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. BY MR. K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC, C.D.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29574 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he is working as Melsanthi of Peruvanam temple under the respondent Board. 2. The first grievance of the petitioner is that though he submitted Ext.P1 resignation seeking to resign from service with effect from 01/03/2009, that has not been accepted. The other grievance is that he is eligible to receive vazhipadu vihitham and that has not been paid to him. It is stated that he made Ext.P2 complaint before the Devaswom Ombudsman, and that before the Deveswom Ombudsman, though the respondent Board undertook that they have no objection to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner, the amount has not been paid so far. 3. In so far as his grievance regarding the delay in the acceptance of his resignation is concerned, the learned standing counsel submits that the resignation will be accepted and terminal benefits will be released, in accordance with Rules. This submission WP(C) No.29574/2009 -2- is recorded, and that should redress the first grievance. 4. The 2nd grievance is regarding non-disbursement of the vazhipadu vihitham. Though respondents have submitted before the Ombudsman that they have no objection to disburse the amount, the learned standing counsel now submits that for the period mentioned in Ext.P3, a daily waged Santhi of the temple has already received vazhipadu vihitham claimed by the petitioner, and therefore, if payment is made to the petitioner, there will be double payment. 5. However, it is to be stated that the claim of the petitioner stands conceded in Ext.P3, and if that be so, he is entitled to be paid the amount. If as stated by the respondents, anybody else has received the payment, and that if such payment was erroneous, it is up to the respondents to take action for getting the said amount recovered. However, that cannot stand in the way of the respondents in releasing the petitioner's dues. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondent Board shall disburse the amount due to the petitioner towards vazhipadu vihitham that is due to him. This shall be done WP(C) No.29574/2009 -3- as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg