High Court Kerala High Court

R. Rajendran Pillai vs Travancore Devaswam Board on 29 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
R. Rajendran Pillai vs Travancore Devaswam Board on 29 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10172 of 2006(J)


1. R. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, STORE KEEPER
                      ...  Petitioner
2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

                        Vs


1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWAM BOARD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

                For Respondent  :SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :29/07/2008

 O R D E R
      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
                       -------------------------
                     WP(C) No.10172 of 2006
                   ---------------------------------
              Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri.D.Sreekumar

appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

2. Petitioner is a karanma kalavara in the Mannadi

Temple and the prayer is for paying equal amount of salary as

that of regular employees of the Devaswom Board. We have

held in another case that karanma employees cannot be treated

as equal with the regular Devaswom Board employees because

karanma employees belong to a different class. Therefore, we

are unable to uphold petitioner’s claim that petitioner is entitled

to equal benefits along with regular Devaswom Board

employees. However, learned Standing Counsel for the

Devaswom Board submitted that there is substantial increase in

the wages of karanma employees and petitioner is a beneficiary

of the same. The increase appears to have been effected after

filing of this writ petition. Therefore, petitioner cannot have any

WP(C) No.10172/2006
-2-

grievance as of now on account of increase in wages already

granted. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)

jg