K.Brahmadathan Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24577 of 2009(N)


1. K.BRAHMADATHAN NAMBOODIRI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. S.BABURAJ, S/O.SREEKUMARAN NAMBOODIRI,

                        Vs



1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

3. THE ASST.DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.GOPAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/10/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 24577 OF 2009 (N)
                =====================

           Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The first petitioner was appointed as a Melshanthi of

Ambalappuzha Sreekrishna Swami Temple. On attaining the age

of 55 years, he retired from service in November, 2007 and

thereupon second petitioner took over as Melshanthi from

December, 2007. Petitioners claim that they got appointment

under karaima right. In this writ petition, the complaint is that

their pay has been fixed at Rs.3000/- (consolidated) and that the

same should be revised and made equivalent atleast with that of

a last grade servant in the Devaswom.

2. The case was adjourned for the standing counsel to

obtain instructions in the matter, and today, it is submitted that

the Board has issued general proceedings dated 23/1/2008 fixing

the full time karaima employees in the scale of pay of Rs.3600-

4510. However, in so far as the petitioners are concerned,

although the representations made by them are still pending,

final orders have not been issued.

3. If as stated by the counsel for the Board, scale of pay

WPC 24577/09
:2 :

has already been fixed as above, there is no reason why the

benefit should not be extended to the petitioners herein also.

4. Be that as it may, now that Exts.P6, P7, P10 and P13

are pending before the 1st respondent, I direct that these

representations shall be considered and orders passed. This shall

be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months

of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this

writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp