Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Mad) 123

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M.M. SUNDRESH
Arulmigu Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam, Rep.by its Hereditary Trustee
Versus
The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Rep. by its Commissioner & Others
W.P. No.1465 of 2011 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On :Decided on: 06-01-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner - R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel for S. Sounthar, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 & R2 -V.S. Sethuraman, Addl. Advocate General Asst. by S. Kandasamy, Special Government Pleader (HR&CE), R3 - S. Doraisamy, R4 - T.L. Ram Mohan, Senior Counsel for A.V. Arun, Advocates.

Ratio
a. Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the Government is having the authority to fix the outer limit of the pay of the employees of the Hindu temple.
b. While calculating the salary for its employees, the receipt of gold by the temple as offerings had to be included in its income for the year in which it was received.

Headnote:(A)Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(22 of 1959)-Sec.27, 55, 116-Temple-Employee-Salary-Quantum-Government-Authority-Employees of the petitioner temple had sought for a direction regarding their pay at the rate approved by the Government which was questioned by the petitioner temple-While the petitioner contended that the Government had no authority to fix the pay, receipt of gold had to be taken as capital receipt, allowance had to be given for the expenditure and the percentage had to be worked out only on the balance which plea was resisted by the respondents-Held, the receipt of gold had to be included in the income for the year in which it was received-Though the Government had to prescribe the outer limit of the salary payable to the employees, the petitioner had to be fair and pay reasonable salary-Petitioner was directed to send the proposal regarding the salary proposal to the Government and the Government was directed to consider it and pass orders within the time given-Writ petition was disposed.
       (B)Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(22 of 1959)-Sec.27, 55, 116-Temple-Employee-Salary-Quantum-Government-Authority-Under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the Government is having the authority to fix the outer limit of the pay of the employees of the Hindu temple.
       Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is very well open to the Government which unfortunately is not a party before this Court, to fix the norms regarding the expenditure of salary and establishment. When the Government can limit the expenditure such a power would also include the guidelines for fixing the salary. Para 15
       A perusal of the order impugned would show that the petitioner was asked to send a revised proposal. The said order has been passed by categorizing the petitioner as a non-senior grade temple in accordance with the Government Orders. The Government Orders passed by the Government are only guidelines for fixing the outer limit of the salary payable by a religious institution coming under the purview of the Act. To that extent it cannot be said that they are without power or authority. .. Para 20

Judgment :-

1. This Writ Petition is a third round of litigation between the priests and the employees on the one hand and Arulmigu Shri Vaithianathaswamy Devasthanam represented by its Hereditary Trustee on the other hand over the fixation of just salary payable. It is rather ironic that the priests who take the prayers from the public to the Lord almighty have come before the Court of law with their own prayers, although as party respondents this time.

2. Everything that exists in the world has got a history in it. A Temple with its deities is no exception. Arulmigu Shri Vaithianathaswamy Temple situated at Vaitheeswarankoil is built by the great Chola Kings of ancient times. It has been renovated over the years by the subsequent rulers of the tamil country. The Temple has Lord Shiva as a presiding deity. During the British rule and more particularly in the year 1842 the then Government had handed over the management of the Temple to the Pandarasannadhi of Dharmapuram Adheenam. As they were allowed to continue over the years through the administration of the Temple, the successive Adheenams were recognised as Hereditary Trustees. The Madathiapathy of Dharmapuram Adheenam has been recognised as Hereditary Trustee as per the scheme framed by this Court.

3. When an Executive Officer was appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, the same was put into challenge by the Dharmapuram Adheenam. Ultimately, the issue was concluded by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in SRI LA SRI SUBRAMANYA DESIGA GNANASAMBANDA PANDARASANNADHI vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS [1966 II MLJ 1]. The Honourable Apex Court while approving the scheme framed was pleased to observe as follows:

Facts in brief: "7....It is brought to our notice that in 1959, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XXII of 1959) was pleased by the Madras legislature. Under Section 45 thereof, the Commissioner is given a plenary power to appoint an Executive Officer to any temple and, therefore, it is argued, this Court shall not interfere with the clause of the scheme providing for the appointment of an Executive Office to the temple in question. The said Act was passed subsequent to the filing of the suit. We are deciding this appeal on the basis of the circumstances prevailing in the year 1951 when the suit was filed. It may be that under the New Act, the Commissioner has higher powers than he had under the 1951 Act and subsequent events may call for the exercise of those powers. Our judgment will not preclude the Commissioner to take any action, under the new Act as the circumstances demand. With these observations we shall proceed to modify the scheme framed by the High Court."

Accordingly, the scheme framed by this Court was modified.

4. The petitioner being the Hereditary Trustee continues to be incharge of the administration. It is not in dispute that Arulmigu Shri Vaithianathaswamy Koil is a "Temple" defined under Section 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "H.R.&C.E. Act"). It is also a "religious institution" as defined under Section 6(18) of the H.R.&C.E. Act and therefore all the provisions and rules made under would be applicable to it. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner Temple comes within the purview of Section 46(iii) of the H.R.&C.E. Act. These facts are not in dispute and infact the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also does not dispute the said position.

5. Now the controversy involved in this case is the power of the official respondents over the fixation of salary payable to the employees of the Temple. The Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.257, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Department, dated 10.06.1998 fixing the scale of pay payable to the employees of various temples. By the said Government Order, the earlier fixation made was reviewed in pursuant to the recommendations of the four

Click Here to Read the rest of this document