IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 1334 of 2001(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRA PILLAI, S/O. PARAMESWARA PILLAI RESIDING AT PUNNUR VADAKKETHIL, KAITHA THEKKU, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. 2. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, THARAYIL PADEETTATHIL, EAREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. 3. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PUTHURETHU PADEETTATHIL, EAREZHA NORTH, EAREZHA NORTH, MAVELIKARA. 4. VELAYUDHA PANICKER, S/O. KRISHNA PANICKER, RESIDING AT KATTORETHU THEKKETHIL EAREZHA NORTH CHETTIKULANGARA MAVELIKARA. 5. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, RESIDING AT UNNI BHAVANAM, KANNAMANGALAM SOUTH CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. 6. MANOJ, S/O. BHASKARA PILLAI, MECHERI PADEETTATHIL, EAREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. 7. SIVANKUTTY, S/O. GOVINDAN PILLAI, KARAVALLIL, EAREZHA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. 8. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. RAJAPPAN PILLAI, AMRITH NIVAS, KANNAMANGALAM SOUTH, CHETTIKULANGARA MAVELIKARA. OP. NO.1334/2001 9. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, RESIDING MANASSERIL, CHERUKOLE P.O., MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING , TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CHETTIKULANGARA DEVASWOM, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER SRI.P.GOPAL SRI.C.VIJAYAN, SC, TDB SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.1334/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.2224/2001 IN OP. NO.1334/2001 DISMISSED 18.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 17.3.2000. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRAM DT. 8.12.97. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 17.3.98. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 4220/98/MIS. DT. 27.6.98 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.9581/2000 DT. 5.6.2000 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 8127/2000/MIS. DT. 5.12.01 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.1334 of 2001-H - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners challenge Ext.P6 by which their claim for regularisation and continuance engagement as Devaswom employees, was rejected. The petitioners claim that they are seasonal karazhma employees of the second respondent Devaswom. They accompany the deity during the period of 'parayezhunnallippu'. As far as the specific duties of the petitioners are concerned, it is stated in the original petition that the first petitioner is engaged for measuring the paddy offered by the devotees to the deity. The second and fourth petitioners are engaged in carrying of different umbrellas and carrying 'kuthuvilakku'. Petitioners 5, 7 and 8 are engaged for other similar duties and petitioners 3 and 9 are engaged in 'chendamelam', etc. It is stated that the duties which are being performed by the petitioners even though are seasonal, the said duties are being performed for a number of years which vest them karazhma right and therefore they are entitled for enjoyment of such rights and revision of wages. 2. Earlier they had approached this court in O.P. No.9581/2000 which was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the OP 1334/2001 -2- representation and take appropriate decision. Thereafter, the Devaswom Commissioner conducted an enquiry and submitted a report as regards the performance of various duties by the petitioners. After referring to the various contentions of the parties, in Ext.P6 it has been held that the petitioners were being engaged by the Devaswom Administrative Officer for different periods in connection with the festival and for 'parayezhunnallippu'. It is clear from the order that they were engaged only by payment of appropriate wages on those days alone and there is no employer employee relationship between the Board and the petitioners. They had no claim to establish any karazhma right also. 3. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the view taken in Ext.P6 is not correct, I find that the petitioners have not established any right as such to claim regularisation in the service of the Board. Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged only on seasonal duties. They were not being paid any monthly salary or any other benefit and have not gained any karazhma right by the performance of such duties also. Therefore, they are also not entitled for continued engagement as employees or for regularisation in the service of the Board. The original petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) OP 1334/2001 -3- T. R.Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.1334 of 2001-H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 18th March, 2008.