V K SARALA Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD

(2.) PETITIONER's father, late E. K. Sankaran Namboodiri, was a Santhikaran of Kulapuramangalam Temple, under the first respondent - Cochin Devaswom Board. His appointment was made as per the provisions of Ext. R 1 scheme formulated pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in writ petition Nos. 14117 - 18 of 1984. He died in harness on July 23, 1989 leaving his wife and daughter as heirs. She made an application for appointment under the dying in harness scheme, which was rejected by the first respondent by Ext. P 3 order dated November 25, 1989, stating that her claim for appointment under the scheme is "inadmissible". She also made another representation to the first respondent, which was also rejected by Ext. P4, on the ground that she is not eligible for appointment under the scheme, in the wake of which this Original Petition is filed, after the first respondent was served with a Lawyer Notice.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the first respondent has adopted all the rules applicable to Kerala Government servants in the matter of appointment of dependents of employees who die in harness. Deceased Sankaran Namboodiri was a full-fledged employee of the first respondent. No doubt, there is a scheme to regulate appointment conditions of service of Pujaries in Santhimattom Temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board", the first respondent. Pursuant to this, Ext. P 6 rules had been formulated by the first respondent - Board. Petitioner obviously is not entitied to claim appointment as Santhikaran because of the special provisions in the scheme and the rules, which have not in terms excluded the applicability of the dying in harness scheme. In our view, the benefits of the general rules applicable to Kerala Government servants must also be extended to employees of the first respondent, and, therefore the petitioner is entitled to seek appointment under that scheme. We agree the first respondent was not justified to pass Exts. P3 and P4 orders and they are accordingly quashed. We direct the first respondent to consider her claim for appointment under the dying in harness scheme, subject to her eligibility and fitness. Appropriate action will be taken by the first respondent within six weeks from today. The Original petition is allowed as above.