IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11364 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------- OS.146/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.V.SREENIVASAN, S/O.LATE T.P.ANANDA VARIER, AGED 45 YEARS, CLERK, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM, CENTRAL OFFICE, KANNUR-11. BY ADVS. MR.N.NAGARESH MR.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. POORUTTATHI C.K.KERALA VARMA VALIYA RAJA. S/O.LATE GODAVARMA, AGED 91 YEARS, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM, KIZHAKKE KOTTAM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERM HR & CE(ADMN) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE (ADMN) DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.K.VIPIN DAS FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11364/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINTO.S. NO.146/05 DT. 29.6.05 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. P2:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 2..05 IN OS. NO.146/05 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. P3:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA. NO.758/06 DT. NIL. IN OS. NO.146/05 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. NO.758/06 IN OS. NO.146/05 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY, DT. 21.8.06. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.11364 OF 2007 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an employee of the Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom and an office bearer of the Union of the employees. According to him, being the office bearer he is interested in protecting the interest of the Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswom. The suit is for modification of the scheme. Anybody interested in the scheme, who are beneficiaries of the scheme and devotees are entitled to get themselves impleaded them in such a suit and make their own suggestions. There is nothing wrong in impleading the petitioner in the suit an additional defendant. His application ought to have been allowed. But the court below held that he has no specific right to get impleaded and that if at all he has grievance, he can approach his employer. The reason stated for dismissal of the application cannot stand. Therefore, -2- W.P.(C).No.11364/2007 IA.No.758/06 for impleading is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.