IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 AS.No. 676 of 1997() -------------------- OS.26/1991 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: KRISHNA NAMBOODIRI, KEEZHSANTHI, GURUVAYUR TEMPLE, S/O. MELEDATHILLATHU PADMANABHAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYUR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR, GURUVAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. SANKARA NAMBOODIRI, KEEZHUSANTHI, GURUVAYOOR TEMPLE, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 3. M.V. UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. MANCHIRA ILLATH VISHU NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DIST. 4. N. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. NAGERI ILLATH KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, GURUVAYUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR. 5. K.C. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. CHERUTHAYUR KEEZHIYEDATHILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, P.O. GURUVAYUR TRICHUR. 6. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. KODAKKATTILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, P.O. GURUVAYUR TRICHUR. 7. K. RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.. KEEZHIYEDATHILLATH VASUDEVA NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR. A.S. 676/1997 2 8. M. GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O.. MOOTHEDATHILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, PUTHANPALLI DESOM, CHAKAYAR PARAMBU, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DIST. 9. RADHAKRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. MULAMANGALATHILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, P.O. GURUVAYOOR, TRISHUR. 10. KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. THELAMPETTA ILLATH NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR. 11. M. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. MECHERY ILLATH VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, GURUVAYOOR DESOM, P.O. GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR. 12. A. MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. AKARAPPILLY ILLATH MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAYUR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR. 13. K.C. GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI ALIAS SASI, S/O. KODAKKATTILLATH KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, GURUVAUR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.V.SANKARA RAJA SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 BY SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, GDB & SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SC, GDB ADV. SRI.K.PADMANABHAN FOR R1 & R2. ADV. SRI. V. SAKARA RAJA FOR R4 TO R7, & R8 TO R13. THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.7.2010, THE COURT ON TE SAMD DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 676 OF 1997 = = = = = = = = == = DATED THIS, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in O.S. 26 of 1991, dated 12.1.1996. One of the Keezhsanthies of the Guruvayur Temple had moved the suit claiming amount for illegal suspension and for damages. The trial court found that the order of suspension was illegal and granted him remuneration during the period of suspension. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has come up in appeal claiming other benefits. 2. Since the plaintiff is the appellant, this Court cannot go into the question regarding jurisdiction of the civil court at this stage. When it is found that the Devaswom has got the authority to suspend a person, then the procedure adopted is subject to challenge under the provisions of the Act and remedies are provided for the persons who are suspended. The question whether a Keezhsanthi is an employee of the Devaswom had been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered in W.P.(C) 30846 of 2008. The learned Judges exhaustively considered the A.S. 676/1997 2 entire case law as well as the factual aspects in that case which also related to the suspension of a Keezhsanthi of the Guruvayur Devaswom. It was a case where some cigarette or beedi butt was found in the prasadam supplied, which deeply wounded and affected the religious sentiments of the devotees, that lead to the suspension. It was contended in that case as well that the religious head is the Thanthri and Thanthri alone can take action. But the Division Bench held that Thanthri also being a member of the Guruvayur Devaswom Administration, a part and parcel of the same and therefore, action can be initiated by the Devaswom. In Para 25 of the said judgment, the court made it very clear that "in other words, his manner of performance of a religious character cannot be interfered with but the conduct of the person during and in the course of such performance is not beyond check and control by the authorities. He is still a holder of an office in the Devaswom and he is not beyond the disciplinary power of the authorities as prescribed by law. A person may owe his existence as Keezhsanthi either through an order in writing or even otherwise." The court further held that "it cannot be contended that merely because the right of being Keezhsanthi is conferred on certain families and in turn petitioners, who are members of the said families, happened to do the work A.S. 676/1997 3 of Keezhsanthies in the temple are beyond the disciplinary control of the administration." Therefore, the Keezhsanthi is also under the disciplinary control. But as I stated earlier, I am not going into the aspects of maintainability of the suit for the reason that it is not challenged before this Court. Now what is claimed by the plaintiff in the appeal is regarding further benefits which the plaintiff was entitled as a Keezhsanthi but for the suspension. In that case, the learned Judges extracted the practice adopted regarding Temple and held that 'keezhsanthi gets a share of all the offerings up to an average of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month, the remuneration of preparing sandal paste which comes to an average of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and a salary of Rs. 6,500/- for the thirteen illoms are availed of by them per month. Thus, each illom can get an average of Rs. 13,500/- per month.' So far as the plaintiff is concerned, when he was suspended it was another branch of his own illom that got the benefit and therefore, the illom had not been deprived of the income which they are entitled to under the practice. But the court below had taken note of the situation that a person who is working is individually entitled to get the remuneration and therefore, granted that remuneration after having found that the suspension is bad. Therefore, I do not find any other ground to grant further amount A.S. 676/1997 4 to the plaintiff in this case. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/- A.S. 676/1997 5 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 676 OF 1997 = = = = = = = = == = J U D G M E N T 19TH JULY, 2010.