Judgment : 1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction all the retirement benefits to the petitioner herein on account of his retirement as ulthurai servant of Arulmighu Bala Murugan Temple, Agaram, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased first petitioner was appointed as patham thangi by the then Managing Trustee of Arulmighu Bala Murugan Temple, Agaram Uddanpally. Hosur Talum, Dharmapuri District in the year 1967 prior to the taking over of the said temple by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. His service were regularised in the temple and he was considered to be a ulthurai servant within the meaning of Rule 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Rules, 1964,. He was paid Rs.60 per month. Subsequently by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.2759, Revenue, dated 26.11.1964 the petitioner was removed from service as he was completed sixty years of age. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral translation of the impugned order which is in Tamil. But the impugned order dated 1.11.1991, the third respondent has removed the petitioner from service as he was crossed sixty years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was the employee of the third respondent temple, till he was removed at the age of 60, the petitioner is entitled for pension and the respondents may be directed to sanction pension amount. 4. Therespondents have filed a counter stating that the petitioner was not a permanent employee and /he is not eligible for sanction of pension. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed to the office of non-hereditary and he was removed from service at the age of 60 by invoking Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules. As per Rule 2(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, “Ulthurai Servants” means servant whose duties relate mainly to the performances or rendering assistance in the performance of punjas, rituals and other services to the deity, the recitation of mantrams, vedas, prabandus, the varams and similar invocations and the performance of duties connected with such performance of recitation. The action of the respondents in invoking Rule 5 of the Rules shows the petitioner was a servant of the temple. The action of the respondents in invoking Rule 5 of the Rules shows the petitioner was a servant of the temple. In my view, the petitioner comes under the definition of Ulthurai Servant as defined under Rule 2(e) of the said Rules. Under the circumstances it has to be held that he is entitled for pension and other benefits. As the first petitioner died, petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased first petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the third respondent, to pay pension amount with arrears as on date, to the petitioners 2 to 4, payable to the first petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently W.M.P.No.6698 of 1992 is closed.