IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6218 of 2010(B) PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. E.P.EASWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ELAYADATH PERKULLAM, KADANNAPPALLI, (VIA)MANDUR- 670 501. 2. P.T.SADHANA, "GOURI NIVAS", NEAR ANNAPOORNESWARI TEMPLE, CHERUKUNNU P.O., CHERUKUNNU. 3. N.GEETHA, POOVALLAP HOUSE, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. 4. A.V.SAVITHRI, AYIRAM VALLI HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU R.S.P.O.,KUNNANAGAD, KANNUR-670 301. BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PO THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY. 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH -R1 ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R2-R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6218 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are employees of Kunninmathilakam Shiva Temple, which is a B Grade temple. As per Ext.P1, the Government revised the salary of the employees of the Malabar Devaswom Board with effect from 1.3.2009. Being a temple falling within the jurisdiction of the Malabar Devaswom Board, the petitioners also enjoyed the benefit of the said pay revision. There is a clause in Ext.P1 which provides for protection of pay. Initially such protection was applicable only to C and D Grade temples, but subsequently, that was made applicable to B Grade temples also, as is evident from Ext.P2. As per Ext.P4, the temple to which the petitioners are attached has been degraded to C Grade temple. Consequent to such degradation of the temple, the salary of the petitioners and similarly situated employees was reduced. The contention of the petitioners is that revision of their pay was effected without issuing notice to them and that their entitlement for protection of their pay based on the relevant clause in Ext.P1 was not at all considered. W.P.(C) NO. 6218/2010 2 2. There is no dispute that the Kunninmathilakam Shiva Temple is presently a C Grade temple. Based on Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners are enjoying the benefit of pay revision. Ext.P1 contains a clause for protection of pay of the petitioners and similarly situated persons. The question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get protection of their pay based on Exts.P1 and P2 even after degradation of the temple to C Grade has not been considered by the respondents, while revising and reducing their pay. In this context, the violation of the principles of natural justice turns fatal. Had the petitioners been afforded an opportunity, they would have endeavoured to convince the authorities concerned that despite degradation of the temple, they are entitled to protection of pay in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. The second respondent is competent to look into the grievances of the petitioners. To enable the second respondent to consider the aforesaid question in its true perspective, the petitioners may submit representations before the second respondent within a period of two weeks from today. If such representations are received, the second respondent shall consider the same in the light of the relevant circular governing the subject matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representations. Considering the fact that the petitioners are drawing salary at the revised W.P.(C) NO. 6218/2010 3 rate, they shall be paid salary at the revised rate till a decision is taken on the representations filed by them. However, it is made clear that entitlement of the petitioners to retain such amount during this period will be subject to the result of the decision. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 6218/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 6218/2010 JUDGMENT 3rd March, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 6218/2010 5