Claims of employment rights relating to hereditary positions must be established through formal legal proceedings in a suitable forum.

O R D E R

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The applicant Sri.V.Sankaranarayan Moosath and additional 3rd respondent Sri.Vasudevan S. are the present incumbents performing duties of Thrukkol in Vengallur Shiva Temple (the Temple) under the Thiruvilwamala Group belonging to Cochin Devaswom Board. They claim to be Karaima employees. Both of them claim that they are full-time employees, but the Cochin Devaswom Board on a wrong notion ordered them to perform duties on 15 days a month each in alternate and their salary has been restricted to 15 days in a month. Till 2006, they claimed to be full-time employees; whereas the Devaswom Board issued orders following salary revision in 2006 regulating their employment in turn and restricting the number of post of Thrukkool to one. The dispute in that regard was espoused before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board by the applicant submitting Ext.O1 complaint. After deliberating upon in detail, the learned Ombudsman submitted CDB Report No.59 of 2019 before this Court. In pursuance of which, this DBP was initiated.

2. An affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board; wherein the stand taken is that there exists only one post of Thrukkol in the Temple and the applicant and the 3rd respondent, who hold the hereditary right, were delineated for duty on 15 days each in a month. It is contended that upto 2006 both of them were paid full salary quite inadvertently and when this matter was noticed during the enquiry by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Cochin Devaswom Board, their service had been regulated. Thus, the Cochin Devaswom Board would contend that although the applicant and the 3rd respondent have karaima right of Thrukkol in the Temple, there is only one post, which they have to perform in turn.

3. A counter-affidavit was filed by additional 3rd respondent. He claims that his family named Udayathillom enjoys hereditary karaima right of Thrukkool from time immemorial. His family has no relation with the family of the applicant. Both of them perform Thrukkol duty on all 365 days in a year, but the Cochin Devaswom Board restricted their duty to half of the days in a month, which is quite illegal. These facts were submitted before the learned Ombudsman.

The 3rd respondent maintains that the nature of karaima right has been noted in Pathivu Register available in the Cochin Devaswom Board.

4. A reply-affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent in answer to the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent in which the posts available in the Temple are enlisted. It is contended that no post of Thrukkol is mentioned in the Pathivu Register. It is true that a reply under the Right to Information Act , 2005 mentioning existence of two posts of Thrukkol was happened to be issued; but it is a mistake. An additional affidavit reiterating the contentions in his affidavit has been filed by the additional 3rd respondent.

5. A reply-affidavit was filed by the applicant wherein he has reiterated his claims in Ext.O1 complaint. He claims that for the last 50 years he has been performing the duties of Thrukkol in the Temple. He was drawing full salary till 2006. Thereafter, the salary was restricted to 15 days in a month, which is without any basis. Even if the 3rd respondent stated before the Finance and Accounts Officer that two persons were performing their duties in alternate, the same is not correct and binding on the applicant. The applicant relying on an answer given by the Devaswom Officer, Annexure A2, claims that the Cochin Devaswom Board has admitted existence of two posts of Thrukkol in the Temple and therefore the stand taken by the Board now is unsustainable. He, accordingly, seeks to direct the Cochin Devaswom Board to regularise the employment of the applicant as full-time Thrukkol in the Temple.

6. The 3rd respondent filed an additional affidavit dated 11.03.2023 reiterating that he had been performing duties of Thrikkol for the last 41 years and drawing full salary. T