The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the State to ensure fair wages and equal remuneration for all workers, emphasizing the principles of fairness and reasonableness in regulating temple affairs.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondent No.1 in Government Order (Nilai) No.91 dated 28.06.2019 and quash the same insofar as its denial of equal pay for equal work on the basis of income derived from each temple to archakas, Maniayam, Beshkar, Odhuvar, Tavil, Nadaswaram and other temple staff and direct the respondents to fix a minimum/living wage fro archakeas, Maniayam, Beshkar, Odhuvar, Tavil, Nadaswaram and other temple staff and direct the respondents to fix a minimum living wage for Archakas, Maniyam Beshkar, Odhuvar, Tavil, Nadaswaram and other temple staff and revise the salary structure of them on the basis of equal pay work within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The writ petitioner is rendering service as an archakar in Arulmigu Sri Rajagopalaswamy Kulasekara Aalwar Thirukovil, Mannarkovil, Ambasamudram. Since the temple staff were being paid meagre salary, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.22907 of 2017 for directing the respondents to fix their salary. In view of the passing of impugned G.O., it had become infructuous. By the impugned G.O.(Nilai)No.91, Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, dated 28.06.2019, the Government has provided for refixing the pay scales of the staff working in various temples which come under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Each temple is treated as a separate unit and the salary of the staff has been made dependent on the income derived by each temple and other parameters. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner seeks revision of the salary structure of the temple staff. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned Additional Advocate General took me through its contents. The stand of the respondents is that it is for the concerned temple to send appropriate proposal for re-fixation of pay and based on such proposals, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments would pass appropriate orders. The respondents questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to espouse the cause of all the archakar of the State. The temples coming under the department are classified on the basis of their assessable income. Each temple is a separate legal entity having their on administration, income and expenditure and set of employees. The salary of a temple employee can be paid only out of the income of the concerned temple. When the temples are classified as senior grade temple and non-senior grade temples with further sub categories and listed and non-listed, all of them cannot be grouped under one umbrella. Taking note of the financial difficulties faced by certain temples, Temple Servants Welfare Funds has been created and salaries are paid out of it. A careful reading of the statutory scheme would indicate that the petitioner's request is misconceived. Section 58 of the Act and the corresponding statutory rules do not envisage granting of the relief sought for in the writ petition. The invocation of doctrine equal pay for equal work is unjustified. When each temple is a separate legal entity having its own administrative set up, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. The petitioner must address the temple management and he could not have rushed to this Court. In any event, the impugned G.O. does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on quite a few decisions and pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. In one sense, challenge