VIMAL CHANDRAN Vs. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come up before us on a report of the learned Ombudsman. The complainant, Vimal Chandran, is the son of Chandrankutty. They are entitled to make claim to one post of Karanma Sambandhi in the Keraladithyapuram Temple. Chandrankutty and Vimal Chandran filed W.P.(C) No.16335/2005. This Court passed an interim order on 31.05.2005, restraining any appointment on permanent basis and clarifying that the said interim order would not stand in the way of making any temporary arrangement. On 10.06.2005, that writ petition was ordered, directing the Board to consider a representation then pending before it. The Board rejected that petition through the competent officer (Assistant Devaswom Commissioner) on 02.08.2005. That became the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.23530/2005, when there was an attempt to discontinue even the temporary arrangement made. Ultimately, on 30.06.2008, that writ petition was ordered, directing that the second petitioner therein, viz., Vimal Chandran, shall be treated as regular Karanma Sambandhi in place of his father Chandrankutty, who retired in 2005. One Pradeep Kumar, who was the sixth respondent in that writ petition, could have been accompanied in some suitable post subject to such consideration by the Board.

(2.) The complaint made by Vimal Chandran before the learned Ombudsman was that, in terms of the aforesaid judgment in W.P.(C) No.23530/2005, he was entitled to be treated and appointed on regular basis as a Karanma employee from the date of retirement of his father Chandrankutty in 2005. That judgment in W.P.(C) No.23530/2005 was issued only on 30.06.2008. The judgment does not contain any direction to make any retrospective appointment on regular basis or to retrospectively regularise any temporary appointment. We also notice that there was an interdiction in the interim order dated 31.05.2005 in W.P.(C) No.16335/2005 against making any appointment on permanent basis, though that interim order would have merged in the final judgment in that writ petition, directing consideration of the representation.

(3.) In the aforesaid factual matrix, we find from the report of the learned Ombudsman that the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner wrote to the Devaswom Commissioner for giving retrospective effect to the appointment and for permission to disburse the monetary claims. In our view, such an approach by the Assistant Commissioner was totally unfounded. Vimal Chandran could not have claimed any regular appointment before the date of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.23530/2005, ie., 30.06.2008. The question is whether he was entitled to any payment if he had worked on any temporary arrangement between 2005, the date of retirement of his father, till 30.06.2008, the date of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.23530/2005. That judgment cannot be used to make any period before that judgment one of regular service and to extend to Vimal Chandran, the gratis of all monetary benefits of permanent appointment and service, more so when, that judgment is silent regarding any such retro-activity of the entitlement for regular appointment. In this situation, learned counsel for the TDB says that the action of the Assistant Commissioner which has reflected in the report of the learned Ombudsman is wholly unauthorised and the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Board had rejected the Assistant Commissioner's proposal. We are of the view that the stand taken by the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Board in that regard is the correct one and the Assistant Commissioner had essentially gone beyond his authority.