Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3167
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
TRUSTEE SREE VISALAKSHI SAMETHA VISWANATHA SWAMI TEMPLE, KALPATHI.P.O,PALAKKAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26156 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.MOHANAKANNAN, R.PADMARAJ
For the Respondents: SRI.V.K.SUNIL, SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.SUVIDUTT M.S, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD
Employment rights demand procedural fairness, ensuring that temporary employees are not arbitrarily dismissed without due process.
Headnote:(A) Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Reinstatement - The petitioner contests reinstatement of the 5th respondent, a former temporary employee engaging in the temple duties, citing procedural flouting in prior orders regarding his service - The orders directing his reinstatement were upheld by the court. (Paras 3, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Employment Rights - The court highlighted the necessity of adhering to employment protocols when dispelling temporary employees and the implications of ensuring fair processes were observed. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The 5th respondent asserted long-standing service in the temple, seeking reinstatement after being removed post-medical leave; the court evaluated the authenticity of claims surrounding his employment.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the 5th respondent’s claims for reinstatement and directed adherence to previous governmental orders.
Issues: Main considerations were the authentication of employment status of the 5th respondent, and whether the corresponding procedures complied with as per the regulatory framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that non-compliance with due process in the dismissal of the 5th respondent warranted dismissal of the petitioner's claims against reinstatement.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner must implement orders from the Malabar Devaswom Board.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inquiry into employment status of temporary workers. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. contestation of reinstatement based on procedural adherence. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. final determination obligates compliance with prior orders. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P2, P4 and P6 and quash the same”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent as well as learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
3. The petitioner is the Trustee of the Sree Visalakshi Sametha Sree Viswanatha Swamy Temple, Kalpathy. It is contended that the 5th respondent had been engaged by the Melsanthi as a helper on daily wages in the year 2005. He worked in the temple from 2005 to 2008 and then left the service. The 5th respondent raised a contention that he had worked as Keezhsanthi on daily wages from 01.01.2001 and that he had been absorbed with effect from 01.01.2005. He had taken leave for 7 days on medical grounds from 06.10.2008 and when he rejoined duty on 13.10.2008, he was denied employment. The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent had been appointed as Keezhsanthi. However, the 5th respondent approached the Commissioner filing M.P. No.1/2009 seeking reinstatement and the same was rejected by the Commissioner by Ext.P1 proceedings. The 5th respondent took up the matter in revision and by Ext.P2 order dated 29.04.2014, the Government directed the consideration of the claim of the 5th respondent for reinstatement on humanitarian grounds. Thereafter, the 5th respondent approached this Court and by Ext.P3, the request for implementation of Ext.P2 was directed to be considered after hearing the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. It is submitted that an order has been passed on 09.03.2018 as Ext.P4 by the Commissioner directing the reinstatement of the 5th respondent. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision. But the same was dismissed by Ext.P6 dated 27.08.2019. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Government and contends that the direction to reinstate the 5th respondent in service is untenable in view of the fact that the 5th respondent was only a temporary employee engaged by the then Melsanthi and he was not entitled to regularization going by the order dated 25.06.2010 which is produced as Ext.P7 since he does not meet the conditions provided therein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had appointed the 6th respondent after conduct of a due selection by a Selection Committee comprising of a nominee of the Trustee, a nominee of the Department as well as the Thanthri after inviting applications and conducting interviews. It is stated that the Commissioner had ordered only the prospective regularization of the 5th respondent and since there is no post to accommodate the 5th respondent as the existing post of Keezhsanthi had been filled up after conduct of due selection process by the Committee appointed by the Commissioner for the purpose, the order is bad in law and cannot be acted upon.
5. A detailed counter affidavit is placed on record by the 5th respondent. It is contended that contrary to what is stated in the writ petition, the 5th respondent had entered service in the year 2001 and worked till 2004 as a helper to the Melsanthi. Thereafter, he was appointed by the Trustee as Keezhsanthi with effect from 01.01.2005. It is submitted that there was an existing post of Keezhsanthi available in the schedule of establishment at the relevant time and though the 5th respondent’s appointment was made on a temporary basis, the petitioner by Ext.R5(a) proceedings dated 07.03.2005 requested the Assistant Commissioner
