Judgment : 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 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. 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 petitioner had retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation, even at the time of filling 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. The case of the petitioners is that by virtue of the authoritative pronouncement of law by a division Bench of this Court as reported in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Chellappan Pillai), after coming into force of the kerala Service Inam lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act 1981, ‘Karanma’ service stood abolished and persons like the petitioners automatically came to the service of the Board ever since 6/8/1981, when the said enactment was brought into existence and hence that they were entitled to be treated on par with the regular employees of the Board and to get treatment in the matter of pay and other service benefits. With the above intent, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14703 of 2005, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment, directing the respondent Board to consider their claims and to pass final orders in accordance with law as specified. With the above intent, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14703 of 2005, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment, directing the respondent Board to consider their claims and to pass final orders in accordance with law as specified. The petitioners also placed reliance on the decision rendered by another Division Bench of this court in O.P.No. 17715 of 2003 (Ext.P5 herein) whereby the petitioner in the said case (Smt. M.K. Omana Amma- ‘Karanma’ employee) was directed to be paid all the pay and allowances admissible to full time “departmental Kazhakam” employees. Accordingly, the respondent Board considered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order, denying the benefit sought for and rejected the representation, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The claim is resisted by the respondent Board on many a ground, including that, as per Section 28 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu religious Institutions Act 1950 and Rules, the Board is fully empowered to have absolute control over the ‘Karanma’ employees and that the said provisions, which were still in force were not dealt with in any manner while passing the verdict in 1988(1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom board Vs. Chellappan Pillai. It was for the Board to fix the pay and other benefits payable to the persons like petitioners; that ‘Karanma’ service was a separate and distinct service, having separate rules of procedure which were very much sustainable being a reasonable classification and did not offend the equality clause in the matter of salary and other service conditions, particularly when the Board was an autonomous body having authority to prescribe its service conditions. Besides referring to other relevant aspects including the probable financial burden, if the claim of the persons like petitioners were to be allowed as highlighted in Annexure R1 (A)- report of the law Officer of the Board, reliance is also placed on the verdict stated as passed by another Division Bench of this Court permitting the Devaswom Board to continue the existing ‘Karanma’ service 5. Sri. V.N. Achutha Kurup, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Court in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Sri. V.N. Achutha Kurup, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Court in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. 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 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. 6. As obvious from the version of the respondent Board including Ext.R1(A) and also as discernible from the impugned order Ext.P4,. the Board has sought to sustain Ext.P4 order on many a ground. It is also pointed out that Ext.P5 judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court and relied on by the petitioners stands entirely on a different footing and not applicable to the petitioners. That apart, reliance has also been placed on the orders/verdicts passed by the Division Bench if this Court, permitting the respondent Board to continue the ‘Karanma’ service, which is strongly rebutted from the part of the petitioners pointing out that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Chellappan Pillai, has become final, on losing the case filed before the Apex Court and further that there cannot be any obscurity as to the course to be followed in view of the positive direction given by another Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P5. 7. Chellappan Pillai, has become final, on losing the case filed before the Apex Court and further that there cannot be any obscurity as to the course to be followed in view of the positive direction given by another Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P5. 7. For effective resolution of the dispute involved, it is very much relevant to understand the scope of ‘Karanma’ and the rights and liabilities attached. Though the term ‘Karanma’ is not defined under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981, or in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950 and Rules, it is discernible from the materials on record and the different verdicts passed by this court that it was a particular system, whereby some members of the family of individuals were required to do some service either by way of ‘personal service’ or by way ‘to provisions’ to the Devaswom; in return of which, they were given the benefit to enjoy the ‘Service Inam lands’ belonging to the Devaswom or others as the case may be. Subsequently, the government wanted to put an end to such arrangements, with intent to reclaim the ‘Service Inam land’;under which circumstance, the Kerala Service Inam lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 was brought into force w.e.f. 8.1981 (after obtaining consent from the president on 27.1981),whereby it was specifically stipulated under section 3 that; notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, with effect of and from the appointed day;- (1) all right, title and interest of the landowners in Service Inam lands held by land holders shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. (2) any service or obligations attached to service Inam land shall stand abolished and the landholders shall have liability or obligation to render any service attached to such lands. It appears that despite abolition of the service or obligation attached to the Service Inam land, ordering vesting of the property in the Government, free from all encumbrances, the persons who were working as ‘Karanma’ employees under the Devaswom were continuing such work, on the basis of the conditions of service as fixed by the board, though no specific termination orders or posting orders were being issued from the part of the Board. 8. 8. While so, no an employee by name ‘Chellappan Pillai’, who was functioning as a ‘Karanma Accountant’ of the Thiruvalla Devaswom under the respondent Board, was served with an order dated 7.1983 requiring him to retire from the service on this attaining the age of 55 years. The above order was made, having regard to Rule 23 of the Rules regarding the recruitment, Service and Conduct of Devaswom Servant, issued under section 35 of the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and rules, which was subjected to challenge before this Court in a Writ petition contending that he, having been rendering service in the capacity as ‘Accountant’ by virtue of ‘karanma’ rights available to the family, he could not be regarded as an employee of the Board and that Rule 23 of the Rule relied on by the Board was not applicable to him, he being a “holder of hereditary office” and hence that he could not be upon to retire from the service in attaining the age of 55 years. A learned Single judge of this Court allowed the Original petition, holding that ‘Karanma’ was a holder of ‘hereditary office’ and therefore not governed by Rule 23 of the Rules prescribing the age of the superannuation for the employees of the Board and the Devaswom Department, which was challenged by the Devaswom board by filing Writ Appeal, culminating in the decision reported in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Chellappan Pillai. 9. As evident from the above verdict, the Division Bench of this court observed that, after coming into force of the Kerala Service Inam Land (Vesting and enfranchisement)Act, 1981, the service or obligation attached to the Service Inam lands stood abolished and that the landholders were having no liability or obligations to render any such service when the land came to be vested with government, free from all encumbrances. However, it was also observed even after extinguishments of the ‘karanma’ after 8.1981, from which date the Act came into force, it was established by the conduct of the parties to the dispute that the concerned employee was regarded as appointed by the Board to offer service as Accountant in the Thiruvalla temple, though no specific order appointing such person under the Board as above was brought to the notice of the Court. The Division Bench also took note of the order of the Secretary of the Board, bearing ROC No.2901/87/Misc, dated 28.87, which prescribed the scale of pay of ‘Karanma’ employees in Major and Minor Devaswoms and accordingly, it was held that such of those of Service Inam holders of ‘Karanma’ who continued to render service to the Board after 8.81 were to be regarded as the “employees of the Board”, even after the abolition of the ‘Karanma’ by the Kerala Service Inam Land (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act 1981. Accordingly, it was observed that concerned employee was continuing in service after 8.1981, not in the capacity as ‘Karanma’ but in his capacity as an employee of the Board, though described with reference to the previous nomenclature as ‘Karanma.’ It was further made clear that, since Rule 23 of the Rule framed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act was within the rule making power of the Board and thus the Board had the power to fix the age of superannuation of its employee, it was clearly applicable to the concerned employee as well and hence that there was nothing wrong in making him to have retired from the service on attaining the age of 55 years, unlike the case of a person who commenced the service before 1.1972, to have continued till attaining the age of 60 years. It was in the said circumstance, that the said verdict happened to be passed, allowing the appeal filed by the Board, sustaining its rule making power to fix the ‘conditions of service’ and more particularly, the age of superannuation. 10. The logic sought to be highlighted by the petitioners is such that since the Division Bench of this court, as per 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Chellappan Pillai has held that all ‘Karanma’ employee who continued in service after 8.81 were continuing so, not in their capacity as ‘hereditary ‘karanma’ service, but as ‘employees of the Board’, it has to be declared that the petitioners are entitled to have all the service benefits of such other employees of the board. Even though the argument may appear to be palatable at first sight, on meticulous analysis, it becomes clear that no such enabling declaration has been made anywhere in the verdict reported in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom board Vs. Chellappan Pillai. Even though the argument may appear to be palatable at first sight, on meticulous analysis, it becomes clear that no such enabling declaration has been made anywhere in the verdict reported in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom board Vs. Chellappan Pillai. On the other hand, the very same decision declares in crystal-clear terms, as to the right of the Devaswom Board to fix the terms and conditions of service of its employees, invoking rule 23 of the rule formulated by the Board by virtue of the power conferred under section 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The amendment to the above rule, by notification dated 10.77 stipulating the minimum age required for appointment in service either as ‘karanma’ or as ‘contingent’ employees are ‘18’ years, making it clear that such employees who entered service before 1.1972 could continue till they completed the age of 60 years of age and the other appointed after 1.1972 would be eligible to continue only till completion of 55 years of age, is also specifically adverted to in paragraph 2 of the said verdict. The benefit of this amendment gas admittedly been provided to the third petitioner, who could continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation by completing ‘60’ years on 35.2005, as conceded in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. 11. As observed already, the division bench of this Court, while passing the verdict in 1988 (1)KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom board vs. Chellappan Pillai, had also occasion to advert to the order of the secretary of the board ROC 2901/87 Misc. dated 28.87, prescribing the ‘Scale of pay’ of ‘Karanma’ employee in ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ Devaswoms (paragraph 5). It was also placing reliance there on, that the finding was rendered, sustaining the action pursued by the Devaswom Board fixing the conditions of service of the concerned employee, who was a ‘karanma’ employee earlier, as to his age of superannuation. The above order explicitly referring to the prescription of the ‘Scale of pay’ of the ‘ Karanma’ employee in Minor and Major Devaswoms i.e. over and above the Rules and orders prescribing the scales of pay of other employees of the Board has very well been sustained relied on by the Division bench, upholding the Rule making power of the board and the consequential steps taken there under. In other words, even though the issue involved in the above case was with regard to the ‘age of superannuation’ of the ‘Karanma’ employee, the authority of the Board and the orders passed fixing the conditions of service including prescription of pay Scales separately to the ‘Karanma’ employee of the Major and Minor Devaswoms, stand approved by the Division Bench. As such, the above decision actually stands against the case put forth by the petitioners, claiming the pay, Pension and other service benefits as payable to the regular employees of the Board and the understanding of the petitioners to the contrary is only wrong and misconceived. 12. With regard to the reliance placed on Ext.p5 verdict passed by another Division Bench of this Court, giving a positive direction to pay the petitioner therein (Smt. M.K. Omanakutty- former ‘Karanma’ employee) all the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the board, it is very much relevant to note that no declaration is made by the Division Bench therein, that all the ‘Karanma’ employees after 8.1981, are entitled to get the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the Board. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner therein was that her family was having ‘Karanma’ rights; that she and her sister Saraswathiamma were serving as ‘Karanma’ employees but were being treated as “part time Kazhakam” though discharging duties as “ full time Kazhakam” and that the Board by proceedings dated 12.85 had allowed the petitioner and her sister to have the pay scale and allowances of a regular employee w.e.f.1.1986, on condition that they gave up the ‘Karanma’ right of the family. The said petitioner was not given the above benefit, despite granting similar benefit to her sister Saraswathiamma. The petitioner therein came to know about the Board order only much later, where upon, the relinquishment of the ‘karanma’ right was executed and given by the ‘Karanvan’ of the family; pursuant to which the Administrative Officer and Assistant Devaswom Commissioner recommended the claim. Instead of posting the petitioner as a’ full time departmental Kazhakam”, the Devaswom Board passed an order, granting the benefits of pay and allowances payable to “ full time Karanma-Kazhakam”, which hence was sought to be intercepted by filing O.P.17715 of 1993. Instead of posting the petitioner as a’ full time departmental Kazhakam”, the Devaswom Board passed an order, granting the benefits of pay and allowances payable to “ full time Karanma-Kazhakam”, which hence was sought to be intercepted by filing O.P.17715 of 1993. This was allowed by the Division Bench as per Ext.P5 verdict, directing the respondent Devaswom Board to grant all the pay and allowances as payable to the ‘Departmental Kazhakam’ to the petitioner therein. In view of the very admitted separate existence of full time “Departmental kazhakam” and full time “Karanma Kazhakam”, attached with different pay scale and allowances as discernible from paragraph 4 of Ext.P5 itself, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that all the ‘Karanma’ employees after 8.1981 are entitled to have similar pay and allowances payable to the regular departmental employees of the Devaswom Board. More so, in view of the existence of the separate orders issued by the Secretary of the Board providing for the scale of pay of ‘Karanma’ employees in ‘major’ and Minor’ Devaswoms as referred to in paragraph 5 the verdict rendered by the earlier Division Bench in 1988 (1) KLT 16 (Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Chellappan Pillai. 13. This Court had also occasion to go through the common order dated 8.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, referring to the general decision stated as taken by the Devaswom Board to continue ‘Karanma’ service, whereby it was observed and directed that those who were already appointed would be given emoluments to which they were entitled to and those who had applied for appointment would be appointed as per ‘Karanma’ Rules; Quite incidentally, it is also relevant to note that the above order, which is subsequent to Ext.P5 verdict dated 8.2000, was also passed by the very same Division Bench, who passed Ext.P5 judgment and such, this court cannot but repel the contentions put forth from the part of the petitioners that the Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext.P5 verdict, has chosen to provide the pay and allowances as payable to the regular employees of the board, to the ‘Karanma’ employee as well. This being the position, there is absolutely no conflict between the orders/verdicts passed by the different Division Benches of this Court as referred to herein before. This being the position, there is absolutely no conflict between the orders/verdicts passed by the different Division Benches of this Court as referred to herein before. Since the conditions of service differ, there is no question of violation of the principle of Equal pay for Equal work and there is no discrimination or arbitrariness to attract any infringement of Art. 14 as well. No case is made out calling for any interference. The Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.