IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 18184 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAPRAKASHAN.K. , S/O.KUTTISANAKARAN NAIR, (LATE) AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTIRI HOUSE, P.O.KULUKKALLOOR, OTTAPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ERANHIPALAM P.O- 673 006, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE MULAYANKAVU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, MULAYANKAVU, KULUKKALLUR, PALAKKAD 679 337. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.18184 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISION DATED 14.7.2010 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDDER NO.15-5319/2010/MDB/KDIS DATED 22.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A):TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18184 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The contention of the petitioner is that he is working as a Velichapadu in Sree Mulayankavu Bhagavathi Devaswom. According to the petitioner, without any notice, the respondents have discontinued with the payment of his monthly salary citing the reason that his name was not included in the salary schedule of the Devaswom. According to him, he is a regular employee of the temple and, therefore, there is no reason for the respondents to discontinue with the payment of monthly salary. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 revision petition before the first respondent raising grievances against Ext.P1. However, the same was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P3. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P3 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A statement has been filed in this Writ Petition on behalf of the Malabar Devaswom Board. It is stated thereunder that Sree Mulayankavu Devaswom is an A-Grade temple coming under the supervisory control of the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Palakkad. It is further stated that the petitioner was being paid on W.P.(C) NO.18184 of 2011 2 days during which he had to perform in connection with the rituals. The petitioner has no regular duties to attend. Guruthi is an important vazhipadu in the temple and around 150 Guruthies would be performed in an year. For each Guruthi, the petitioner was being paid Rs.300/-. It is also stated that apart from this, he was being paid an amount on days of Chutuvilakku, Kalampattu and Koothu. The salary schedule of the establishment would reveal that there are only 8 sanctioned posts. The post of Velichappadu is not included in the schedule. The salary schedule would also reveal that more than 9 persons are performing duty as Vadhyams on temporary basis at the time of Guruthi besides the petitioner, it is stated. The petitioner and the said persons are being treated equal. The petitioner and those persons whose services are required only at the time of performance of rituals cannot claim that they are regular employees and therefore, entitled to be included in the salary schedule. It is thus obvious that the respondents have refuted the specific contention of the petitioner ie., he is a regular employee of the Devaswom. In fact, the specific contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not amongst the employees included in the salary schedule and he is being paid only for attending the rituals and also for Chutuvilakku, Kalampattu and Koothu. The petitioner has not refuted the specific contentions raised by the W.P.(C) NO.18184 of 2011 3 respondents. So also, no material has been produced before this Court to show that the aforesaid statements made by the Malabar Devaswom Board are incorrect and not true to the facts. When the admitted position is that the petitioner is not a regular employee and his name has not been included in the salary schedule, his claim for monthly salary cannot be sustained. There is no case for the petitioner that on days during which he had performed duties in connection with the rituals he was not paid. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18184 of 2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18184 of 2011 5