IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36827 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.E.GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. LATE EASWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 51 YEARS,KALLAMPALLI ILLAM, KAVUMBHAGAM P.O. PERINGOL, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, (WORKED AS SANTHI, MINOR PERINGOLE DEVASWOM, ANIRUDHESWARAM SUB GROUP, THIRUVALLA GROUP). BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVALLA. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.P.GOPAL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36827/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 784/200. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.3. HEREIN. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN UNDERTAKING DTD. 27/06/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C). NO.16285/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.16285/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 2416/2007 DTD. 08/10/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 12710/1996 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DTD. 03/01/2001. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE RULES UNDER SECTION 35 (2) (E) OF THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1950. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.36827 of 2008-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner's family has the right, which is called 'Mara santhi', in relation to a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The quality of this right is that a member of the family will perform the santhi duties(the poojas and attendant activities) and will derive payment by way of salary etc. from the temple authorities (TDB). 2.The petitioner was found to have committed some acts of misconduct. Though I have read the allegations against him, it is not necessary to mention it in this judgment. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service. He challenged it before this Court. That was futile. He went to the Apex Court. That was also turned down. WPC36827/08 -: 2 :- Thereafter, he made a representation to the TDB to reinstate him. At that time, the Board suggested that he has to relinquish the 'Mara santhi' rights of the family to which he belongs. For that, the TDB wanted the members of the petitioner's family to relinquish all their rights and claims as 'Mara santhi'. The petitioner came to this Court challenging that decision. This Court struck down that decision of TDB as per Ext.P7 judgment. It appears that the parties were then canvassing their rival contentions on the basis of a set of rules which, even according to the petitioner, does not really apply to the case of 'Mara santhi'. Whatever that be, when the matter was sent back by this Court to the TDB, the Board decided that they would not reinstate the petitioner. Such decision was essentially one stating that the petitioner would not be re-appointed or re-admitted to duty. It means that the initial order of compulsory retirement stands. This is under challenge. WPC36827/08 -: 3 :- 3.As already noted, there is controversy as to whether the rules relied on by the TDB applies to the case in hand. At the same time, the learned counsel for the TDB states that in the earlier round, the petitioner sought relief on the basis of the very same set of rules. 4.However, I do not deem it necessary to go into the controversy as to the identity of the rules that apply, because if a person has been compulsorily retired from service, he cannot get that employment except by a re-appointment. The question of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was affirmed by this Court and the Apex Court. His re-employment could only be on agreement of parties. Not only that, the TDB cannot be compelled to re-appoint a person who has been compulsorily retired on ground of misconduct. 5.This does not, however, mean that any other member of the family which has the 'Mara santhi' WPC36827/08 -: 4 :- rights cannot claim such rights as regards the temple in question. 6.With the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to relief no.(i) in the writ petition. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner then pressed for relief no.(iv) which is nothing but one consequent to the direction in the earlier round of litigation. The date of compulsory retirement was 23.7.1996. There was a direction that all benefits due to the petitioner on account of compulsory retirement be released by treating the period of suspension as period spent on duty. Obviously, the delay would have occurred even due to the petitioner seeking “reinstatement”. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, while rejecting all other reliefs sought for, it is ordered that the pension and other retiral benefits due to the petitioner, if WPC36827/08 -: 5 :- any, in accordance with law, on account of the compulsory retirement on 23.7.1996 will be given effect to in terms of the earlier directions within a period of two months from now, without fail, if not already paid. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1308