Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JAYANTHAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32880 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Manu Govind
For the Respondents: K.P.Sudheer, SC, Cochin Devaswom Board, Smt Sylaaja S L, GP
The provisions of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 do not apply to individuals seeking pay parity as employees under existing orders, emphasizing adherence to binding precedents.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 applies to appointments at the Devaswom Board. Facts: Petitioners, employees in temples, sought pay parity with Devaswom Board staff. Findings: Court found that Section 9(1) doesn’t apply to petitioners since they weren't requesting appointments directly to the Board.
Issues: Whether petitioners were entitled to claim pay parity after the Recruitment Board's formation?
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized Section 9(1) of the Act and relevant precedents binding on the current proceedings, indicating that previous decisions must be adhered to despite current stays.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and Ext.P7 set aside, ensuring pay parity for petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment and entitlement for salary parity. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for equal pay based on existing employee roles. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application of prevalent precedents on employment classification. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. precedents must be followed despite the stay order. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were employed as ‘Shantis’, ‘adichu thali’, and ‘Kazhakam’ etc., in various temples mentioned in Ext.P1 order dated 29.12.2017, issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board – the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P1, the Devaswom Board decided to take over the administration of the temples mentioned therein. Later, the Devaswom Board issued the order at Ext.P2 dated 28.02.2019, wherein at paragraph 4, with reference to the petitioners herein who were working in the temples mentioned therein, a decision was taken by the Devaswom Board to consider the petitioners herein as employees of the Devaswom Board. At the same time, the question as regards the salary and other allowances of the petitioners herein was decided to be addressed on a later stage. On the basis of afore, the petitioners sought for fixation of their salary etc., on par with the pay scales of similarly placed employees already working with the Devaswom Board. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the Devaswom Board issued the order at Ext.P6, finding that the petitioners could only be entitled for a consolidated pay. This is followed with another order at Ext.P7 dated 05.11.2022, pointing out that the temples referred to in Ext.P2 have been taken over by the Devaswom Board and insofar as the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board has come into existence from 2014, appointments as sought for by the petitioners or fixation of salary as sought for by them could not be extended and at the maximum, only consolidated pay could be extended to the petitioners. It is seeking to challenge the afore that the petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri. Manu Govind, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri. K.P Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Manu, relying on Ext.P8 reply received to certain queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, would point out that insofar as the duties carried out by the petitioners herein are similar/identical to the duties carried out by the regular employees, the petitioners also requires to be extended the same pay scales. However, it is pointed out by Sri. Sudheer, learned counsel for the Devaswom Board that since the Devaswom Recruitment Board has come into existence as noticed earlier, there is no possibility of accepting the contention raised as above. He would also rely on Ext.R2(a) communication issued by the Devaswom Recruitment Board as under:-
Sri. Sudheer further points out that the writ petition itself is not maintainable since, admittedly, the Devaswom Recruitment Board is not a party to this writ petition.
4. In answer to this, it is pointed out by Sri. Manu that provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), itself is not applicable to the petitioners. He would also add that, insofar as the mandate under (1) referred to above has already been set aside by this Court in Gurvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC OnLine 8] , the explanation provided in Ext.P7 by the Devaswom Board cannot be accepted. However, Sri. Sudheer, further points out that the judgment of the Division Bench has already been stayed at the instance of the Recruitment Board by the Apex Court in the order dated 29.01.2026 in SLP No.3789 of 2026, hence the impugned order at Ext.P7 requires to be sustained.
5. There is no dispute about the preposition made as above with reference to the duties of the petitioners herein and their counterparts in the regular service in the respondent Devaswom Board. The short issue arising for consideration is as to w
