Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 579 (KER)

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD v. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI

1987-11-13

BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, MALIMATH

body1987
Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the Travancore Devaswom Board and its Sub Group Officer, Thiruvalla, challenging the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. No. 1172 of 1983. The respondent was Karanma Accountant of Thiruvalla Devaswom. He was called upon to render service being the seniormost member of the family. He was rendering service to the Thiruvalla Devaswom when he was issued the impugned order Ext. P-5 dated 2-1-1983 requiring him to retire en his attaining the age of 55 years and directing him to produce evidence in proof of his age. The said order was made having regard to R.23 of the Rules regarding the Recruitment, Service and Conduct of Devaswom Servants, issued under S.35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The respondent challenged the order, Ext. PS, before this Court and took up the contention that as he is a holder of Karanma Inam and rendering service in that capacity as Accountant he cannot be regarded as an employee of the Board or the Devaswom Department. He took the stand that he is the bolder of a hereditary office and that R.23 of the Rules relied upon by the Board is not applicable to him as a Karanma and therefore he cannot be called upon to retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years. The learned single judge has allowed the Original Petition holding that the Karanma is a holder of hereditary office and therefore not governed by R.23 of the Rules prescribing the age of superannuation for the employees of the Board and the Devaswom Department. It is the said judgment that is challenged in this appeal. 2. S.35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 empowers the Board to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of S.35 which in the relevant provision in this behalf, may be extracted as follows: "35. (1) The Board may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act inconsistent therewith. Cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of S.35 which in the relevant provision in this behalf, may be extracted as follows: "35. (1) The Board may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act inconsistent therewith. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Board shall have power to make rules with reference to the following matters: (e) the method of recruitment and qualifications, the grant of salaries and allowances, the discipline and conduct of officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department and generally the conditions of their service " It is clear from this provision that the Beard is entitled to make rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board and the Devaswom Department: The age of superannuation is one of the conditions of service in respect of which rules can be made. The power to make rules regulating the conditions of service is obviously confined to officers and servants of the Board and the Devaswom Department. R.23, which was made in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-s. (2) of S.35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, was amended by Notification dated 5th October 1977 (produced as Ext. R1 (b)) which reads as follows: "The minimum age required for appointment in service either as Karanma or as contingent employee shall be eighteen years. No temple employees, either Karanma or contingent, who has entered service before 1-1-1972 will be retained in service alter the completion of his 60th year of age. Temple employees appointed after 1-1-1972 either in Karanma or contingent service will not be retained after completion of his 55th year of age." This rule prescribes the minimum age for appointment as also the age of superannuation. It prescribes the higher age of superannuation of 60 years in respect of temple employees whether they are Karanma or contingent employees provided they have entered service before 1-1-1972. In respect of employees appointed on and after 1-1-1972 the age of superannuation is fixed at 55 years. Having regard to the fact that R.23 has been made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board by S.35 of the Act, it is obvious that R.23 could govern only officers and servants of the Board or the Devaswom Department. In respect of employees appointed on and after 1-1-1972 the age of superannuation is fixed at 55 years. Having regard to the fact that R.23 has been made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board by S.35 of the Act, it is obvious that R.23 could govern only officers and servants of the Board or the Devaswom Department. This therefore takes us to the question as to whether the respondent could be regarded as a servant of the Board or the Devaswom Department. It is nobody's case that the respondent is the servant of the Devaswom Department. Hence the only question for consideration is as to whether he is the servant of the Board. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent was the holder of hereditary right known as Karanma to the Thiruvalla Devaswom. Karanma was admittedly one of the service inam prevailing in the State of Kerala. By the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981, service inams were abolished, the lands were resumed and the liability to render service was extinguished. The preamble to the Act reads: "Whereas it is necessary in the public interest to provide for the vesting and enfranchisement of Service Inam Lands in the State of Kerala by abolition of all services attached to such lands and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto; Be it enacted in the Thirty-second year of the Republic of India as follows:-" The expression 'Service Inam Land' has been defined in S.2(f) of the Act to mean land held under a tenure to which some specific service or obligation in the shape of personal labour or supply of provisions is attached and includes land held under Viruthi, Oozhiyam, Karanma or Erayili tenure. The expression 'land holder' has been defined in S.2 (c) to mean a person holding Service Inam Land. The expression 'land holder' has been defined in S.2 (c) to mean a person holding Service Inam Land. Explanation to this reads as follows: "Where any service inam land is In the possession of a person, other than the person to whom the land was granted for performing services or any of his successors-in interest, the person in possession of the land shall be deemed to be the landholder for the purpose of this Act." S. 3 of the Act, which is of crucial importance to this case reads: "Vesting of rights of landowners in Government and abolition of services: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being is force, or in any contract, or in any judgment decree or order of any Court, with effect on and from the appointed day. (1) all right, title and Interest of the landowners in Service Inam Lands held by land holders snail vest in the Government free from all encumbrances; (2) any service or obligation attached to Service Inam Lands shall stand abolished and the landholders shall have no liability or obligation to render any service attached to such lands." The Act came into force on the 6th of August, 1981. The Service Inam, known as Karanma, thus stood extinguished by the operation of S.3 of the Act and the lands that were assigned for due performance of the service of the temple stood resumed and vested in the State Government, as provided in sub-s. (1) of S.3 and the liability of the Karanma-holder to render service to the temple also stood abolished by the operation of sub-s. (2) of S.3 of the Act. Thus with effect from 6th August 1981 the respondent ceased to be the holder of Service Inam by the name Karanma. The lands that were assigned to him for rendering the said service stood vested in the State Government and thus the respondent was absolved of his liability to render service to the temple. 4. Our attention has not been drawn to any specific order appointing the respondent for rendering the service as Accountant in Thiruvalla Devaswom by the Board. But the conduct of the parties clearly establishes that the respondent was regarded as appointed by the Board to offer service as Accountant to Thiruvalla Temple. 5. We may, however, advert to the order of the Secretary of the Board, R.O.C. No. 2901/87/Misc. But the conduct of the parties clearly establishes that the respondent was regarded as appointed by the Board to offer service as Accountant to Thiruvalla Temple. 5. We may, however, advert to the order of the Secretary of the Board, R.O.C. No. 2901/87/Misc. dated 26th August, 1987 which was brought to our notice during the course of the arguments, which prescribes the scale of pay of Karanma employees in major and minor Devaswom. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that such of those Service Inam Holders of Karanma who continued to render service to the Board after 6-8-1981 were regarded as the employees of the Board. Even after the abolition of the Karanma by the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting & Enfranchisement) Act, 1981, the employees were described as Karanma employees having regard to the former status they enjoyed before the abolition of Karanma service inam by the aforesaid Act. It is therefore clear that after the coming into force of the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981, is law there were no service inam holders of Karanma who were entitled to render service as hereditary office-holders. The status of Karanma service inam holders who continue in service after 6-8-1981 is therefore clearly as employes of the Board. Therefore it follows that the respondent who was rendering service as Karanma up to 6th August, 1981 must be regarded as having rendered service after 6-8-1981 not in his capacity as Karanma but in his capacity as an employee of the Board, though described with reference to the previous nomenclature as Karanma. As R.23 of the Rules framed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act is within the rule-making power of the Board and thus the Board has the power to fix the age of superannuation of its employees it is clearly applicable to the respondent after 6-8-1981. The respondent was therefore regulated by the age of superannuation prescribed by R.23 of the Rules. 6. So far as persons who were holders of Karanma before 6-8-1981 are concerned having regard to the language employed in R.23, it is clear that different ages of superannuation have been prescribed, one for those who were serving as Karanma rendering service before 1-1-1972 and those who were rendering service as Karanma after 1-1-1972. 6. So far as persons who were holders of Karanma before 6-8-1981 are concerned having regard to the language employed in R.23, it is clear that different ages of superannuation have been prescribed, one for those who were serving as Karanma rendering service before 1-1-1972 and those who were rendering service as Karanma after 1-1-1972. Those who commenced rendering service before 1-1-1972 were entitled to the higher age of superannuation of 60 years and those commenced rendering service after 1-1-1972 are entitled to the lower age of superannuation of 55 years. So far as the respondent is concerned, he commenced rendering service as Karanma from 22-1-1978. That being the position be was governed by the provisions fixing 55 years as the age of superannuation. The appellant-Board was therefore right in calling upon the the respondent to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation at 55 years. 7. Unfortunately attention of the learned single judge was not drawn to the provisions of the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting & Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 when the case was argued. It is therefore that the learned single judge took the view that R.23 of the Rules will not be applicable to Karanma who holds a hereditary office and is therefore not an employees of the Board. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the Original Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No costs.