Judgment :- CHANDURKAR, C.J. 1. By a demand dated 6th January, 1976 the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, made a demand of Rs. 22,000, from the appellant which is a Mutt at Madurai. The demand purports to be by way of reimbursement of the Executive Officers salary. The period in respect of which this amount is demanded is not stated in the demand notice. But we are told by the learned Government Pleader that this demand is for the period 1968-1976. 2. The demand was challenged in a writ petition filed in this Court mainly on the giound that the Manager had not attended the Office of the appellant Mutt and had not even once signed the registers kept at the Mutt and repeated representations by the Mutt to the Commissioner regarding the nonperformance of the duties by the Manager had never been heeded to. According to the appellant, the demand for reimbursement of the salary violates the normal rule that no one can claim salary and allowance for work that had not been done. The learned Judge has, however, dismissed. the petition on the ground that the appellant will have to work out its rights only by means of a civil suit because evidence will have to be taken to show that the Managers appointed by the first respondent did not really attend the Mutt and did not perform any duty whatsoever. This order is challenged in the appeal filed by the Mutt. 3. The short argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is not bound to reimburse the Endowments Department in respect of the salary paid by the department to the Manager or the Executive Officer unless the Manager or the Executive Officer has really attended to the work of the Mutt According to the learned counsel the Manager or the Executive officer has never came to the Mutt or done any work. In order to illustrate this, a reference is made to a letter addressed by the Adheenakarthar to one V. Natarajan, the Manager appointed by the Department on 3rd April, 1972 by which the Manager was informed that he joined duty on 21st March, 1972 and he was asked to attend office regularly from 8 am to 7 pm and also to sign the attendance register maintained in the office, but that he had never turned up after joining duty on 21st March. An explanation was, therefore, called for. The reply given by the Manager on 6th March, 1972 is to the effect that he has to attend on two more temples apart from the Mutt and neither himself nor his predecessors ever signed the attendance register and he will have to get instructions from the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department and he will revert back after getting instructions. 4. Paragraphs 3 and 4(a) of the Scheme as follows:— “3. The Board shall have power to appoint a Manager to carry on the day-to-day administration of the Mutt. His salary shall come out of the funds of the Mutt. The salary and the conditions of service of the Manager shall be in accordance with B.S. No. 2001 of 1942, as modified from time to time. 4. (a) The Manager shall work under the general directions, supervision and guidance of the Matadhi-pathi and shall obey ail his lawful orders. .. ” 5. The two clauses of the Scheme, dated 6th September, 1948 reproduced above will show that the Manager to be appointed by the Board was to be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Mutt and that he was to work under the general directions, supervision and guidance of the Matadhipathi and he was duty bound to obey the lawful orders of the Matadhipathi. 6. The scheme obviously contemplates that a person who will be able to atlend to the day-to-day administration of the Mutt was to be appointed as a Manager. Now firstly, it is difficult for us to see how if the appointment was to be made under the Scheme, the Manager who had already on his hand the work of two or three institutions could be appointed as the Manager. Now firstly, it is difficult for us to see how if the appointment was to be made under the Scheme, the Manager who had already on his hand the work of two or three institutions could be appointed as the Manager. But apart from this, unless the Manager has actually attended to the day-to-day work, it is difficult for us to see how Mutt can be forced to bear the i burden of the salary of such Manager. 7. If a financial liability is to imposed on the Mutt and if that financial liability is disputed on the ground that the person whose salary is now sought by way of reimbursement has never worked in the Mutt and has never attended the Mutt, surely, the minimum to which the Mutt is entitled is an enquiry into the grievance made by the Mutt. Forcing the Mutt to file a civil suit after payment of a large amount of Rs. 22,000 will really amount to depriving the Mutt of its moneys without having established its liability to pay the said amount. It is also difficult for us to see how the department waited for 16 long years to make the demand because it is stated before us that the demand is for the years 1975-1976. This is, therefore, pre-eminently a case where unless the liability of the Mutt is properly established the Department will not be entitled to make any demand of any amount by way of reimbursement of the Managers salary from the Mutt. We have no alternative but to quash the demand for Rs. 22,000 made by the Department on 6th January, 1976. The department will now furnish to the Mutt the exact details along with the names of the different Managers and their period of work, and their diaries will be made available to the Mutt, so that the Mutt will be in a position to put their case before the Department that the demand made is not proper or justified. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order dismissing the writ petition is set aside The demand, dated 6th January, 1976 is quashed. Any further demand to be made by the department will be only after making a proper enquiry and giving an opportunity to the Mult to make its representations against the said demand. The Government to pay the costs of this appeal. Costs Rs. 500.