IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17713 of 2006(H) PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. SIVADASAN V., NADASWARAM PLAYER, TRIPARUNDARA DEVASWOM, MAVELIKKARA GROUP. 2. MAHADEVAN, NADASWARAM PLAYER, CHETTIKULANGARA DEVASWOM, CHETTIKULANGARA. 3. REGHUNATHAN NAIR K., THAKIL PLAYER, PANDAVARKAVU DEVASWOM, MUTHUKULAM P.O. 4. K.HARIKUMAR, NADASWARAM PLAYER, KANJOOR DEVASWOM, NANGIARKULANGARA SUB GROUP, NANGIARKULANGARA. 5. P.SURESH KUMAR, NADASWARAM PLAYER, NANGIAR KULANGARA DEVASWOM, NANGIAR KULANGARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 17713 of 2006 :: 2 :: 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (VIGILANCE & SECURITY), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA GROUP, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 17713 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 to 5 are Nadaswaram and Thakil players in the Devaswom Board. According to the petitioners, the duty of Nadaswaram and Thakil are only to play those instruments at the time of Pooja, special pooja and Sreebhooda Bali etc. The petitioners pointed out that under Ext.P3 circular issued by the Devaswom Commissioner on 22.10.1990 those Nadaswaram and Thakil players who were not desirous of being allotted Kidamura duty ( night watchman duty) were to be exempted from such duty. But apparently under Ext.P2 circular dated 29.5.2006 this was proposed to be changed by the Commissioner. Ext.P2 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The following interim order was passed by this court on 17.7.2006: “ Standing Counsel for the respondents seeks more time to lay down the modalities in working out Ext.P2 circular issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. It is submitted that WPC.17713 /2006 2 the same will be done after ascertaining the views of the recognised unions and a meeting will be convened immediately. Post on 9.8.2006. Till then Ext.P3 circular will govern the parties.” 3. There is only one recognised union among the employees of the Devaswom and after consultation of the said union as well, Ext.P4 order came to be passed by the Commissioner on 11.8.2006 wherein affirming the stand for allotting night watchman duty to Nadaswaram and Thakil players also, certain changes were also brought in. Certain categories of Nadaswaram and Thakil players were exempted from night watchman duty. Such exempted categories includes persons who have completed 20 years of service, A-grade Artists, persons who are affected with major disease, persons with disability of 50%, priests and lady employees. The stand taken in Ext.P4 was ultimately confirmed by the Board as per Ext.R1(a). Ext.P4 has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Krishnamoorthy and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board Sri.D.Sreekumar. He submits that the decision WPC.17713 /2006 3 in Ext.P2 has ultimately been changed by Ext.P4 and Ext.P4 is applicable to all the similar categories of employees. Certain exemption has been granted in certain categories. The petitioners cannot claim any discrimination vis-a-vis such exempted categories. If the petitioners have any independent grievance to be highlighted, the same shall also be looked into by the Board notwithstanding Ext.R1(a). This submission is recorded. 5. In my view, the petitioners have not been able to make any illegality or patent irregularity in Ext.P4 order or Ext.R1(a) order. The order applies to all the similar categories of employees. If that be so, the petitioners cannot raise any particular grievance as regards Ext.R1(a). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were not heard before Ext.P4 order is passed. In my view the petitioners cannot insist that each and every individual employee should be heard before the Commissioner passed Ext.P4 order or the Board passed Ext.R1(a) order. The issue is one of general application and not necessarily relatable to any particular employee. WPC.17713 /2006 4 7. Nevertheless if the petitioners have any individual factors which stand in the way of discharging duties as a night watchman, they may bring it to the notice of the Board and the Board shall hear them and take a decision in that regard. If the petitioners file representation within one month, the Board shall pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter. The interim order already passed will continue till a decision is taken by the Board. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.17713 /2006 5