IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33404 of 2006(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- 1K.GIRISH KUMAR, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, T.C.7/1982, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS ASST. GARDENER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DAVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. By ADV. SRI. P.G. PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB SRI.P.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34797 OF 2009 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SP -1- WP(C).No. 33404 of 2006(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- 1. EXT. P1 - COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO: R.O.C. 4367/1996/EST.I DATED 31/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 2. EXT. P2 - COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/12/1997. 3. EXT. P3 - COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. 4. EXT. P4 - COPY OF THE R.O.C NO:18324/1997/EST. II DATED 26/11/1998 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 5. EXT. P5 - COPY OF THE R.O.C. NO:127/1998/EST.I DATED 02/06/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 6. EXT. P6 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/11/2001 IN O.P. NO: 5782/2001. 7. EXT. P7 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/07/2005 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO: 17880/2005. 8. EXT. P8 - COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.O.C. NO: 5524/09/EST.II PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD ON 04/03/2010. 9. EXT. P9 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2008 IN WP(C) NO:18173/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. 10. EXT. P10 - COPY OF THE R.O.C NO:8199/2008/EST II DATED 05/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 11. EXT. P11 - COPY OF THE R.O.C. NO:5524/2009/EST.II DATED 04/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 12. EXT. P12 - COPY OF THE LIST OF DAILY WAGE WORKERS WORKING IN THE SERVICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PREPARED PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT P10 ORDER VIDE R.O.C NO:179/09/EST. DATED 14/08/2009. 13. EXT. P13 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. NO:4407/2010 IN W.P.(C) NO: 34797/2009. 14. EXT. P14 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2010 IN W.P.(C) NO: 9093/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. 15. EXT. P15 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO:R.O.C. NO: 179/09/EST. DATED 23.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. SP -2- -2- WP(C).No. 33404 of 2006(B) 16. EXT. P16 - COPY FO THE OPTION DATED 17/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 17. EXT. P17 - COPY OF THE R.O.C NO:2/11/MIS.C DATED 13/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 18. EXT. P18 - COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/02/2011 PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 09/02/2011. 19. EXT. P19 - COPY OF THE ORDER R.O.C NO:7659/97/EST.11 DATED 06/03/1998 ISSUE3D BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- 1. EXT. R1 A - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN D.B.A NO:138/2002 DATED 13/11/2003. 2. EXT. R1 B - COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENT OF DAILY WAGE DATED 15/11/2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. SP Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).Nos.33404 of 2006-B, 34797 of 2009-T, 36289 of 2009-E, 2084 of 2010-T & 30984 of 2010-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These writ petitions are filed by persons who were working in different posts in the administrative service of the Travancore Devaswom Board on temporary or daily wages basis. They were not regular employees. With the passage of time, situation arose as to whether having served TDB for a quite long time, they would be entitled to be considered for regularization. On that policy issue, the Board constituted a committee and reviewed the different cases and came to a formula whereby those who have contributed five years of continuous engagement as on 1.7.2009 WPC33404/06 & con.cases -: 2 :- either as daily rated or otherwise and who do not have a gap of six months in such officiation, will be eligible for being moved to the temple staff and treated as temple employee on confirmed basis. There are other conditions also to be complied with. The petitioners are either those who did not opt in time for such change over or persons who had more than six months' gap in service. For those who had not opted in time, the Board has a view with a suggestion that belated options given from among the petitioners herein could be considered and option could be accepted, if it is otherwise in order. As far as those persons who would have a gap of more than six months, we direct that the Board will consider each such individual case at the policy making level and come to a reasonable decision so that the employees need not be deprived of their aspirations arising out of continuous officiation and engagement in the service of the Board. It could also be treated that their services were exploited for the existence of the TDB. WPC33404/06 & con.cases -: 3 :- 2.However, none of the petitioners could aspire for regularization in the administrative wing, as of now. This is for two reasons. There is no rule in force which provides for such regularization, as of now. Equally, on and after the coming into force of Section 29A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, no such exercise can be carried out except in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, these writ petitions are ordered directing as follows: 1.Those among the petitioners, who could not place options in time, would be eligible to do so within one month from now and such options will be duly considered by the TDB. 2.Any regularization of the period of break shall be considered sympathetically by the Board in individual cases. WPC33404/06 & con.cases -: 4 :- 3.Regularization of the petitioners, if any, shall be only as temple staff and not in the administrative service. 4.The benefit of this judgment shall be confined to the petitioners and it is not intended to apply as a general principle or precedent, since we issue this direction on the very peculiar facts and circumstances and having regard to the long period which we have noted. We issue these directions confining the benefit only to the petitioners more so because, no such employee has come out with any such grievance even after the amendment of the Act by inserting Section 29A. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. Sha/2012