1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether a Karanma employee attending to the service of a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period he is kept under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings or not?

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The 1st petitioner is a Kazhakom of Padinjattukavu Devaswom. He is a departmental employee under the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The 2nd petitioner is a Karanma Poojakottu of Thrikkariyoor Devaswom. He is working there as the representative of the Karanma family. Both of them were entrusted with the duty of counting of money along with others on 5.1.2013 at Thrikkariyoor Sree Mahadeva Temple. The counting of money was completed on 5.1.2013 itself. Thereafter, based on certain visuals telecast by 'Indiavision', a private news channel, allegedly in respect of the said counting of money and also based on the report of the 3rd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioners were suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings alleging misappropriation of money as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.2.2013 of the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner. Along with the petitioners, by separate orders, two other officers were also suspended from service. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolutely innocent of the allegations levelled against them. During the period the petitioners are kept under suspension, they are entitled to subsistence allowance as provided under Rule 55 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules(for short, the K.S.R.) as the Travancore Devaswom Board has adopted the K.S.R. in respect of such matters. But, the petitioners have been denied the subsistence allowance illegally. At the same time, those two other officers who were also suspended from service based on similar allegations were granted subsistence allowance as provided under the said Rule 55.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents filed a statement in this case. It is admitted in the statement that the 1st petitioner, being a departmental employee, is entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule 55 of Part I of the K.S.R. Since there was no dispute with respect to the entitlement of the 1st petitioner to subsistence allowance, this Court, by way of an interim order passed on 21.11.2013, directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the 1st petitioner during the period of his suspension including its arrears. Accordingly, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st petitioner is being paid the subsistence allowance. The only relief which was pressed into service at the hearing of this case is in respect of the payment of subsistence allowance to the 2nd petitioner. Since the 1st petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance, this writ petition, in respect of him, has become infructuous.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the 2nd petitioner, being a Karanma employee, is not entitled to subsistence allowance. Rule 55 of Part I of the K.S.R. is not attracted in the case of a Karanma employee. The case of the 2nd petitioner has to be dealt with as provided under Rule 13 of the Rules Framed Under Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 Regarding Karanma Service (for short, the Rules). Based on this Rule, it was contended that if a member of a Karanma family is found unfit to retain in service, such person can be removed from service by the Devaswom Board and another person from the Karanma family can be appointed in his place. For removing such a person from service, no disciplinary proceedings need be initiated against him and he can be removed after giving notice to the head of the Karanma family invoking the powers under Rule 13 of the Rules. In fact, accordingly, as per order dated