JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The prayers in the afore captioned Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the salary from the Management Fund, like any other employee of Kurumathur Illam Group Devaswam. (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to pay the salary due to the petitioner along with arrears from the Management Fund of the Malabar Devaswom Board considering Ext.P-6 representation. (iii) For all the costs of the Writ petition. (iv) For such other and further reliefs, that are deem fit under the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. K. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for R-4 (Temple Trustee). 3. This case has come before us on the basis of an order of reference rendered on 5.2.2021 by the learned Single Judge in this W.P. (C). The relevant part of that reference order, more particularly those contained in Paras 7 to 9 thereof, reads as follows: “7. The learned counsel for the petitioner immediately seeks to draw a distinction between the executive officers appointed by a trustee and executive officers appointed by the Commissioner. It is submitted that the distinction has not been considered in Ext.R1 (2) judgment. It is stated that in the case of executive officers appointed by the Commissioner, they are liable to be transferred to other Devaswoms as well and they are also given additional charge of several temples and they have been permitted to draw their salary from the temples which have financial capacity to make such payments. It is contended that since the petitioner is a temple employee appointed by the trustee, there is no such option available to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be appointed in any other temple. It is contended that if the petitioner is put in charge as executive officer of any other temple under the Malabar Devaswom Board, the petitioner is willing to work and to draw salary from such temple where the financial situation permits. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I find that the petitioner is undoubtedly an executive officer appointed by the trustee. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I find that the petitioner is undoubtedly an executive officer appointed by the trustee. The petitioner's name has also been included in the schedule of establishment of the religious institution concerned. Going by the specific provisions of Ext.R1(1), temple employees would be eligible for financial assistance from the Fund. I am, therefore, prima facie of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to assistance from the Temple Management Fund. 9. However, in a similar factual situation, another learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.R1 (2) judgment had held that executive officers, who are appointed in terms of the rules framed under Sections 100(2) (p) and (x)(ii) of the Act are not temple employees for the purpose of the Fund and cannot draw amounts from the Fund even when the temple in which they are appointed cannot pay their salary. In view of the fact that this Court has considered the similar situation and has held that the salary of executive officers cannot be paid from the temple fund in view of the fact that they are not temple employees, I am of the opinion that the question whether the petitioner, who has been appointed by the trustee of the temple under Section 48 of the Act in terms of a scheme of administration framed under Section 58, is a temple employee and is, therefore, entitled to payment of salary from the Temple Management Fund, which has been constituted as per Ext.R1(1) requires consideration by a Bench of this Court. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is referred for consideration by a Division Bench. The Registry shall take steps to place the matter for consideration by a Bench.” 4. The case set up in the above W.P. (C) is to the effect that the temple in question is the one which is covered by Ext.P-1 scheme framed by the Deputy Commissioner of the erstwhile Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department which is presently nomenclatured as the Malabar Devaswom Board as envisaged in Section 7 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 [hereinafter referred to as “The Act”] and that the petitioner has been duly appointed as per Ext.P-2 order dated 5.11.2014 as the Executive Officer of the abovesaid Temple Devaswom in question, as envisaged in Clause 8 of Ext.P-1 scheme. Further that, Ext.P-3 dated 7.8.2017 is the order issued by the Commissioner approving the appointment of the petitioner as Executive Officer of the temple. Further that, the name of the petitioner has been duly included in Ext.P-4 which is the statutory schedule of the establishment of the temple in question, as envisaged in Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act. 5. The main question raised in this case is as to whether the petitioner who is the Executive Officer appointed by the Temple Devaswom is to be treated as an employee of the temple for securing the financial benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) G.O. (MS) No. 481/1995/RD dated 10.10.1995 as subsequently laid down in further Government Orders as in Ext.P-5 G.O. (MS) No. 277/2019/RD dated 3.9.2019. It is also common ground that the abovesaid temple devaswom in question, where the petitioner is employed as Executive Officer, is having income which is below the upper cap limit stipulated in Ext.P-5 G.O. for the purpose of securing financial benefit under the above scheme for temple employees. Going by the pleadings of both sides including the statement and counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent temple devaswom, the abovesaid temple devaswom is having acute financial difficulties and was not in a position to pay salaries and other financial benefits to its employees including the petitioner. The pleadings of R-4 temple would disclose that all temple employees of abovesaid temple devaswom other than the petitioner, have already secured the financial benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) Scheme read with Ext.P-5 G.O. 6. The main ground of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for securing financial benefits as per the above scheme is that the petitioner who is an Executive Officer, cannot be treated as an employee of the temple for securing the benefits of abovesaid scheme. It is one of the main contentions of respondents 1 to 3 that the scheme of abovesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder may envisage two types of Executive Officers: (1) Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner in terms of Section 66 of the Act. It is one of the main contentions of respondents 1 to 3 that the scheme of abovesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder may envisage two types of Executive Officers: (1) Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner in terms of Section 66 of the Act. (2) Executive officer appointed by the temple trustee under Section 48 of the Act and in accordance with the scheme framed for the temple under Section 58 of the Act. 7. The service conditions of both sets of Executive Officers are commonly covered by the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) of the Act. Hence, it is contended that the special scheme for granting financial benefits to the temple employees in terms of Anx.R-1(1) scheme and Ext.P-5 G.O. etc. cannot enure to the benefit of the Executive Officer appointed under any of the provisions of the Act. 8. Whereas, the specific case of the petitioner is that there are 2 categories of Executive Officers as envisaged by the provisions of abovesaid Act. One appointed by the Commissioner under Section 66(1) of the Act coming under Chapter VI thereof which is applicable in the case of notified religious institutions. In such cases, salaries and allowances are paid from the funds of the institutions as envisaged in Section 66(2) of the Act. Further that, Section 58 envisages framing of a scheme for religious institutions, be it notified or un-notified and Section 58 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to frame a scheme for religious institutions and such a scheme may provide for appointment of an Executive Officer and in such a case, the Executive Officer of the temple is to be appointed by the temple/temple trustee. In that case also, the salary and allowances of the Executive Officer shall be payable from the funds of the temple concerned. Further, the specific case of the petitioner is that right from the commencement of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, an Executive Officer, appointed by the Commissioner in terms of Section 66 of the Act, will have to work in different temples belonging to different devaswoms and in their case, salary will be paid and shared by each of the temple devaswom concerned. Further that, it also appears that if any such temple devaswom is having financial difficulties and their income is below the abovesaid upper cap, then in such a case, salary and allowances of the Executive Officer of the temple appointed under Section 66 will be shared by the other financially well off temple devaswom etc. But that, in the instant case where the Executive Officer of the temple is appointed in terms of Section 58 of the Act, ordinarily, he is appointed only for the temple devaswom in question, and if the temple devaswom is having only one temple, he can work only in that temple, and there is no question of transferring such an Executive Officer to any other temple devaswom. So also, in a case where such a temple devaswom is having more than one temple, like in the instant case, then the Executive Officer appointed by the temple devaswom will have to work in all or any of those temples under the same temple devaswom, but cannot be transferred to any other temple devaswom. The salaries are paid by the said employer temple devaswom. Section 68 envisages that Section 58 will not apply to notified institutions. The counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the documents as in Exts.P-7 and P-9 which are in relation to the registers of the Temple Employees Welfare Fund wherein, for Executive Officers appointed by the temple trustee, they denoted as ‘T’ presumably meaning temple and Executive Officers appointed by the Commissioner are denoted as “EO.” 9. That, in the instant case, the petitioner is working in a temple devaswom which has one main temple and 5 subsidiary temples, and the salary can be paid only by the temple devaswom concerned, and such an Executive Officer cannot be transferred to a different temple devaswom. The main issue in this case is as to whether an Executive Officer appointed for a temple devaswom in terms of Section 58 of the Act is eligible to secure the financial benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) Scheme read with Ext.P-5 G.O. in a case where the temple's total income is below the upper cap limit fixed as per the government norms in Ext.P-5. 10. 10. From the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent it is seen that the present temple devaswom is facing acute financial difficulties, more particularly, after the commencement of COVID-19 pandemic issues since March, 2020 onwards and that all employees of the temple other than the petitioner have been given the benefit in terms of Anx.R-1(1) Scheme. 11. It is true that the service conditions of Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act as well as the Executive Officer appointed by the temple devaswom in terms of Section 58 read with Section 48 etc are commonly regulated by the rules framed under Section 100(2)(x)(ii) of the Act in view of the mandate of that provision. But, that cannot be the basis to contend that an Executive Officer appointed by the temple devaswom is not a temple employee, for the purpose of entitlement for the benefit of Anx.R-1(1) scheme. As already noted in the reference order, the post of Executive Officer of the temple to which the petitioner has been appointed has been included in the statutory schedule as mandated by Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act. 12. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act stipulates that the pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each officer and servant of the temple devaswom shall be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the Area Committee in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other institutions, and the trustee shall not alter the schedule without previous permission of the Area Committee or the Commissioner, as the case may be. 13. There is no dispute that the names of the posts held by the petitioner and all other employees of the temple devaswom have been duly included in the said schedule as can be seen from Ext.P-4. Whereas, the post of Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act will not be included in the Schedule prepared as per Rule 10 above. Whereas, the post of Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act will not be included in the Schedule prepared as per Rule 10 above. Further, the petitioner has a specific case that in the case of an Executive Officer, appointed directly by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act, will be posted in different temple devaswoms and wherever he is posted, the proceedings of the Commissioner would stipulate as to which are the temples he has to work and which among those temples should share the salary burden etc. 14. Further, it is pointed out that presently, as per the coming into force of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act and the Rules framed there under, the task of making selection for appointment of Executive Officers to be appointed by the Commissioner is to be done by the Devaswom Recruitment Board and further that the recently in one such selection, the Commissioner has issued proceedings in terms of Ext.P-14 dated 9.10.2018. Ext.P-14 would show that various incumbents have been appointed as Executive Officer by the Commissioner in terms of Section 66 of the Act, and in the said posting order, it can be seen that the same mentions about the temples wherein the officer concerned will have to work, and as to the temples that should bear the burden of payment of salary to the officer, and as to whether 100% of said burden is to be borne by one of the temples, and whether it should be apportioned, etc. 15. On this basis, the petitioner would point out that even if the financial condition of anyone of the temples where the Executive Officer appointed by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act is problematic, then the burden thereof could be shared by other temples, or the officer could be transferred to different temples devaswoms and in such case the problem of paucity of funds for payment of salary to the Executive Officer would be minimal. Whereas, in the instant case, where the Executive Officer is appointed for a temple devaswom in terms of Section 58 of the Act, and if the financial condition of said temple devaswom is in doldrums, and its income limit is well below the upper cap fixed in Ext.P-5 etc then, the present stand of respondents 1 to 3 is upheld, then such an Executive Officer, who is an employee of the temple will not get any coverage or financial benefits, whereas all other employees of same temple devaswom would get the benefit. Moreover, in such a case, an Executive Officer like the petitioner appointed for a temple devaswom cannot be transferred to any other temple devaswom as well. 16. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the major objective of the scheme framed in terms of Anx.R-1(1) scheme as later modulated in subsequent orders as in Ext.P-5, is to take care of the minimum necessary financial needs of employees of temple devaswoms, where the temple devaswom is facing acute and serious financial problems as per that scheme. An Executive Officer appointed by the temple trustee under Section 58 scheme is certainly an employee of the temple. The Schedule framed under Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act would make it amply clear and Ext.P-4 is testimony to that. Whereas, an Executive Officer appointed directly by the Commissioner under Section 66 of the Act will not be included in such a schedule. In other words, even if, the service conditions of both sets of Executive Officers are commonly covered by the same set of rules in terms of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(x) (ii), in substance, an Executive officer like the petitioner who is appointed by the temple trustee is an employee of the temple. This we hold so, atleast for the conferment of benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) scheme. In that regard, we are fully in agreement with the views rendered by the learned Single Judge in the order of reference. 17. This we hold so, atleast for the conferment of benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) scheme. In that regard, we are fully in agreement with the views rendered by the learned Single Judge in the order of reference. 17. It is also pointed out that earlier a learned Single Judge has rendered Anx.R-1(2) judgment dated 11.7.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 23625/2008 wherein a contrary view has been taken holding that in similar case it was held therein that an Executive Officer appointed by the temple trustee in terms of Section 58 of the Act will not get the coverage of Anx.R-1(1) scheme herein. 18. For the abovesaid reasons, we are not in a position to concur with the said views in the judgment in W.P. (C) No 23625/2008 and the views therein would stand overruled. The upshot of above discussion is that the Executive Officer like the petitioner, who is appointed by the temple trustee, is also eligible to be considered for the conferment of benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) Scheme read with Ext.P-5. However, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the claim in any manner. The petitioner has made a claim by filing Ext.P-6 representation filed as early as on 10.9.2020 before the 2nd respondent Commissioner. 19. The 2nd respondent Commissioner will immediately call for a report on the matters referred to in Ext.P-6 from the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner as well as from the 4th respondent temple trustee, and ascertain about the financial status of the temple devaswom and as to whether the total income of the temple does not exceed the upper cap limit stipulated in Ext.P-5 order and such other norms, and also about the correctness of non payment of salary to the petitioner for the periods mentioned in Ext.P-6 etc, and also as to whether the other employees of same temple have been given the benefit, etc. 20. The 3rd and 4th respondents will furnish their reports on those aspects to the 2nd respondent within one month. While doing so, the 3rd and 4th respondents will also ensure that copies of their reports shall also be forwarded to the petitioner. 20. The 3rd and 4th respondents will furnish their reports on those aspects to the 2nd respondent within one month. While doing so, the 3rd and 4th respondents will also ensure that copies of their reports shall also be forwarded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person or through authorized representative/counsel if any, and then the 2nd respondent, after adverting to various aspects and also after examining the reports of the 3rd and 4th respondents may take a considered decision on the claim of the petitioner for getting financial benefits in terms of Anx.R-1(1) scheme read with Ext.P-5 G.O. etc without much delay, at any rate within an outer time limit of 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 21. It is made clear that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he is not entitled for the scheme as he is an executive officer. 22. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.