C. R. Chandrasekhara Menon v. State — 1958 DIGILAW 92 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. These petitions are by three employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and they pray for the issue of writs of certiorari quashing certain decisions of the Respondent; the State of Travancore-Cochin, declaring that the petitioners and other servants of the Devaswom Board are not servants of the State Government and also for writs of Mandamus calling upon the Respondent to restore the petitioners to their original status as Government servants. The orders sought to be quashed were passed on 18-8-1955" and 13-12-1955 O.P. No. 67 was filed before the later order was passed and therefore, the only order sought to be quashed in that petition is that dated 18-8-1955. The three petitions were heard together. 2. The material averments in the three petitions may be stated as follows: After the assumption of Devaswom by the Maharaja of Travancore in the year 987 M. E. (1811 A. D.) in exercise of his sovereign rights, the Devaswoms were administered by the Revenue Department of the State till the year 1097 M. E. (1922 A, D.) when the Maharaja promulgated the Devaswom Proclamation of 1097 constituting a separate Department of the Government for the administration of Devaswoms. This proclamation provided that the expenditure in connection with the Devaswoms would be met out of the general revenues of the State. At the time the petitioners entered service, the Devaswom Department was thus one of the several departments of the Government and the petitioners were Government servants. The Proclamation of 1097 was repealed by another of the year 1121 which also provided that the expenditure in connection with the Devaswoms would be met out of the general revenues. When the interim Constitution Act of Travancore was passed, it was felt necessary to place the Devaswoms under the control and supervision of the Maharaja and another Proclamation was promulgated on 10th Meenom 1123 (23rd March 1948) vesting the administration of Devaswoms in the Maharaja. It was also provided that a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs would be provided in the State Budget every year for the maintenance of the Devaswoms. According to the petitioners, this Proclamation did not affect their status and they continued as servants of the Government, notwithstanding the assumption of management of the Devaswoms by the Maharaja. It was also provided that a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs would be provided in the State Budget every year for the maintenance of the Devaswoms. According to the petitioners, this Proclamation did not affect their status and they continued as servants of the Government, notwithstanding the assumption of management of the Devaswoms by the Maharaja. When the States of Travancore and Cochin were integrated, a covenant was entered into by the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin with the concurrence and guarantee of the Government of India and Art.8 (c) of the covenant made provision for transferring and vesting the administration of Devaswoms, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments in the Travancore Devaswom Board with effect from 1st August 1949. The petitioners' case is that such vesting did not affect their status as Government servants. Art.19 of the covenant provided for the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public service of the covenanting States on conditions which would not be less advantageous to them than those on which they were serving immediately before 1-7-1949. The Hindu Religious Institutions Ordinance IX of 1124, was promulgated soon after and S.29 (5) of the Ordinance provided that Art.19 of the covenant would apply to permanent members of the service in the Devaswom Department. S.29 (5) of the Hindu Religious Institutions Ordinance, I of 1950, also contained a similar provision. According to the petitioners, these administrative changes could not and were not intended to affect their status as Government servants. The Devaswom Board took up this question with the Government and the first of the impugned orders was passed on 18-8-1955 holding that the Devaswom employees were not servants of the Government. In the later order dated 13-12-1955, the Respondent held that the Devaswom. Department was a department of the State Government only till 10-8-1123, i.e. the date of the Proclamation of 1123. As a result of these orders, the petitioners and other employees of the Devaswom Department lose several advantages and concessions which Government servants in other Departments are enjoying, such as increased salary, educational concession for children, free medical aid, etc. These orders are also stated to be against Art.346 of the Travancore Service Regulations, Art.19 of the covenant and Art.311 of the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the issue of writs quashing these orders and compelling the Respondent to treat them as Government servants. 3. These orders are also stated to be against Art.346 of the Travancore Service Regulations, Art.19 of the covenant and Art.311 of the Constitution. The petitioners, therefore, pray for the issue of writs quashing these orders and compelling the Respondent to treat them as Government servants. 3. The State opposes these petitions. The main grounds taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State are that the orders are ministerial or administrative in nature, that the same have been validly passed, that by the Proclamation of 1123 the duties, functions and authority of the State Government became vested in the Maharaja, that the State Government was divested of powers over Devaswoms and employees of the Devaswom Department by this Proclamation, that the administration and management by the Maharaja later became vested in the Travancore Devaswom Board by Ordinance IX of 1124, and that the petitioners and others ceased to be Government servants after 10-8-1123. It is also contended that the petitions are not maintainable, as the Devaswom Board on whose representation the impugned orders were passed has not been made a party. The petitioners' right to enforce the rights or obligations under the covenant is also denied. The Respondent also denied the allegation that Art.311 of the Constitution was violated. The petitions are also stated to be belated. The main question for decision is whether the employees of the Devaswom Department who entered service before 10th Meenom 1123 (23-3--1948) the date of the Proclamation of 1123, continued as Government servants after that date. Sri. M.N. Parameswaran Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners, traced the history of the Devaswom Department and it is useful to refer to the same. Several Devaswoms in the State of Travancore which were under the management of Oorallers were assumed and brought under the control and management of the Government by the Maharaja in exercise of his sovereign powers in the year 987 M. E. (1811 A. D). The administration of these Devaswoms was conducted thereafter through the Revenue Department of the State and the income of the Devaswom properties became merged with the general revenues of the State. The expenses in connection with the management of the Devaswom were also met from the general revenues. The administration of these Devaswoms was conducted thereafter through the Revenue Department of the State and the income of the Devaswom properties became merged with the general revenues of the State. The expenses in connection with the management of the Devaswom were also met from the general revenues. This state of affairs continued till the year 1097 M. E. (1922 A. D.) when the Maharaja of Travancore promulgated the Devaswom Proclamation, S.7 of which was as follows:- 7(1) Our Government may for the better and more efficient management and more effective control of the Devaswoms mentioned in the Schedule organise a Devaswom Department of the State consisting such number of officers and other servants as they think fit. , (2) The expenditure in connection with the said department shall, notwithstanding anything contained in S.3 and 4, be met out of the general revenues of the State" A fund called the Devaswom fund was also constituted by the Proclamation and the same consisted among other items of "allotment made in the State budget every year for the said Devaswoms, such allotment not being less than 40 per cent of the ayacut and Sanchayam land revenue of the State." There was another Proclamation on 25-11-1121 (9-7-1946) repealing the Proclamation of 1097 which provided that the annual allotment made in the State budget should not be less than 25 lakhs of rupees. S.7 (1) provided for the continuance of the Devaswom Department organised by the Government under the Proclamation of 1097 and S.7 (2) reaffirmed that the expenses in connection with the said Department should be met out of the general revenues of the State. On 10-8-1123 (23-3-1948) there was yet another Proclamation by which the Maharaja assumed control and management of the Devaswoms and Devaswom Department of the Government. By this Proclamation the annual allotment in the State budget towards the Devaswom fund was increased to 50 lakhs of Rupees. A material change was made in respect of the funds from which the expenditure was to be met. While the expenditure was to be met from the general revenues of the State under the earlier proclamation, S.6 (2) of this Proclamation provided that such expenditure should thereafter be met from the Devaswom fund. Every section in the Proclamation of 1121 where the words "Our Government" appear was amended and instead of these words, the word "We" was substituted. While the expenditure was to be met from the general revenues of the State under the earlier proclamation, S.6 (2) of this Proclamation provided that such expenditure should thereafter be met from the Devaswom fund. Every section in the Proclamation of 1121 where the words "Our Government" appear was amended and instead of these words, the word "We" was substituted. Political and constitutional changes affecting what were then known as the Native States were impending at that time and in May 1949, the Rulers of the States of Travancore and Cochin entered into a covenant with the concurrence and guarantee of the Government of India integrating the two States to form the United State of Travancore and Cochin. Art.8 (a) of the Covenant provided that the obligation of the State of Travancore to contribute from its general revenues a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs every year to the Devaswom fund would thereafter be the liability of the United State of Travancore and Cochin. By S.8 (c) it was provided that the administration of the Devaswoms, Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments and their properties and funds would vest with effect from the 1st day of August 1949 in a Board known as the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Hindu Religious Institutions Ordinance IX of 1121, was promulgated and it was to come into force on the 1st day of August 1949. This was necessitated by the provisions in the Covenant relating to Devaswoms in the United State of Travancore and Cochin. S.29 (5) of the Ordinance provided that Art.19 of the Covenant relating to conditions of service of servants of both the former State Governments would apply to the permanent members of the service in the Devaswom Department. This was followed by Ordinance I of 1950 which also contained a similar provision in S.29 (5). Before the expiry of the period of this Ordinance, the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act XV of 1950, was passed on 16th April 1950. The provision regarding the applicability of Art.19 of the covenant to permanent members of the service in the Devaswom Department is absent in Act XV of 1950. The question whether the petitioners and other servants of the Devaswom Department continued as Government servants after 10-8-1123 has to be decided in the light of these enactments. 4. The provision regarding the applicability of Art.19 of the covenant to permanent members of the service in the Devaswom Department is absent in Act XV of 1950. The question whether the petitioners and other servants of the Devaswom Department continued as Government servants after 10-8-1123 has to be decided in the light of these enactments. 4. According to the Respondent, the petitioners ceased to be servants of the Government after 10-8-1123 when the Maharaja of Travancore assumed full control of the administration and management of the Devaswoms in the State. The provisions of the Proclamation of 1123 leave no doubt that the powers and functions of the State Government of which the Devaswom Department was a part ceased on that date and that all such powers were assumed by the Maharaja. It cannot be overlooked that on the date of this Proclamation the Maharaja of Travancore was entitled by virtue of his sovereign powers to divest the State Government of its powers over Devaswoms. This Proclamation was issued shortly after the Travancore Constitution Act of 1122 was passed. The Maharaja apparently did not want to leave the administration of the Devaswom to the State Government in the new set up. Every section in the former Proclamation relating to the powers and duties of the Government was changed and suitable amendments were made to show that thereafter such powers would be exercised and functions discharged by the Maharaja. S.6 (1) of the Proclamation of 1121 was as follows: "6(1). The Devaswom Department organised by Our Government under the Devaswom Proclamation of 1097 shall continue and consist of such number of officers and other servants as Our Government may think fit". The words 'Our Government may think fit" were substituted by the words "We may determine from time to time." The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that no material alteration was made by the Proclamation and the only change introduced was that the Maharaja would" thereafter administer the Devaswom Department of the State. We are unable to accept this argument. Whereas under the earlier Proclamations the expenditure in connection with the Devaswoms were to be met from the general revenues of the State, the Proclamation of 1123 expressly provided that such expenditure would thereafter be met from the Devaswom fund. This change was introduced by S.5 (2) (ii) of the Proclamation of 1123. We are unable to accept this argument. Whereas under the earlier Proclamations the expenditure in connection with the Devaswoms were to be met from the general revenues of the State, the Proclamation of 1123 expressly provided that such expenditure would thereafter be met from the Devaswom fund. This change was introduced by S.5 (2) (ii) of the Proclamation of 1123. So far as the control, administration and management of the Devaswoms were concerned, the State Government completely disappeared from the picture except as regards its obligation to contribute a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs every year to the Devaswom fund. The reference to Art.19 of the Covenant in the later Ordinances and Statute was relied on by the petitioners in support of their position. In our opinion, such reference serves only to emphasise that the former employees of the Devaswom Department were not servants of the Government at the time the Ordinances and the Act were passed. What was stated in S.29 (5) of Ordinance IX of 1124 was "Article 19 of the Convenant shall, as far as may be, apply to the permanent members of the Service in the Devaswom Department". The same provision was incorporated in S.29 (5) of Ordinance I of 1950. II these persons continued as servants of Govt. there was no need to make such a provision because Art.19 of the Covenant was applicable to all servants of the Governments of the two integrating States. The fact that S.29 (5) was there shows that the status of the employees who came under the Devaswom Board was different from that of Government servants. As stated earlier, when Ordinance I of 1950 was replaced by Act XV of 1950 passed by the legislature of the State, the provision in S.29 (5) of the two earlier Ordinances was omitted. It cannot, therefore, be con tended that the petitioners continued as Government servants by virtue of S.29 (5) of the two Ordinances referred to above. Another argument was that the two Ordinances and Act XV of 1950 contained a provision that the officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department would be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code. Another argument was that the two Ordinances and Act XV of 1950 contained a provision that the officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department would be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code. This also serves to show that they were not Government servants because if they were really Government servants there was no need to state that they would be deemed to be public servants. Thus the Proclamation of 1123 and the later enactments lead to only one conclusion, namely that the employees of the Devaswom Department who were Government servants till 10-8-1123 ceased to hold office under the Government after that date 5. Shri. Parameswaran Pillai advanced yet another argument namely, that the salary of Devaswom employees was paid from the annual contribution made by the State and that it should, therefore, be deemed that the petitioners were servants of the Government. We are unable to accept this argument either. It is open for the State to make grants to institutions and bodies and the fact that such grants are utilised for payment of salary by the institutions or bodies cannot confer on their servants the status of Government servants. Even the assumption that the salaries of the Devaswom employees were paid from the annual grant of 50 lakhs of Rupees is incorrect as the said grant is only one of the several items constituting the Devaswom fund. Thus, on the main point the petitioners are bound to fail. 6. As the petitioners ceased to be servants of the Government after 19-8-1123 the question whether Art.311 of the Constitution or Art.346 of the Travancore Service Regulations violated does not arise. Even assuming that they were holding civil posts under the Government, it is difficult to see how Art.311 was infringed, as there is no case that the petitioners were removed from office or reduced in rank due to any misconduct on their part. It has been held in several cases that violation of the Service Regulations does not give a justiciable cause of action. 7. In view of the conclusions reached above, it is unnecessary to consider the other objections raised by the State such as failure to implead the Devaswom Board and the belated nature of these petitions. 8. In the result, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. 7. In view of the conclusions reached above, it is unnecessary to consider the other objections raised by the State such as failure to implead the Devaswom Board and the belated nature of these petitions. 8. In the result, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. The three petitions are therefore dismissed with costs, including advocate's fee of Rs. 100 in each case.