MANOHARA WARRIER R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the 'Karanma' service employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who were continuing in service after abolition of the 'Karanma' pursuant to the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 as employees of the Board are entitled to have the pay and pensionary benefits as in the case of the regular employees of the Board, in the light of the Law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in 1988 (1) KLT 161 (Travancore Devaswom Board v. Chellappan Pillai), is the issue involved herein.

(2.) THE petitioners belong to the families who had 'Karanma' rights in the Thakazhi Dharma Sastha Temple, where the first and second petitioners were employed as 'Kazhakam'; whereas the third and fourth petitioners were continuing as 'Kompu' and 'Sampathi' respectively. THE first and fourth petitioners had retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation, even at the time of filing this Writ Petition and other two petitioners retired from the service during the pendency of the Writ Petition as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit dated 29/02/2008, stated as filed by the petitioners. THE only difference is that all the petitioners except the third petitioner retired from the service on completion of '55' years; whereas the third petitioner could continue in service till attaining the age of '60' years by virtue of his appointment having had effected prior to 1972 as stated in the paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition.

(3.) SRI. V. N. Achutha Kurup, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in 1988 (1) KLT 162 (Travancore Devaswom Board v. Chellappan Pillai), submitted that the issue as to the status of the petitioners continuing as "employees of the Devaswom Board" after abolition of the 'Karanma' service by virtue of Section 3 of the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 stands settled and hence that the petitioners who are the "employees of the Board" and are made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation (unlike 'hereditary' post) were entitled to have the same pay and service benefits including pension, as that of the regular employees of the Board. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on Ext. P5 rendered by another Division Bench of this Court, giving a positive direction to the Board to provide the pay and allowances to the petitioner therein, who, earlier was a 'Karanma' employee, in view of the order already passed by the Board in this regard. Lastly, the learned senior counsel asserts that the petitioners are similarly situated like the petitioner to Ext. P5 verdict and hence that there could not be any discrimination, thus seeking to interfere with Ext. P4 order passed by the Board, to the contrary.