JUDGMENT : (Anil K. Narendran, J.) Respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.(C)No.25037 of 2013 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2015 in that writ petition. The said writ petition was one filed by respondents 1 to 7 herein, who are the temple employees of Sree Meledath Siva Temple, a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in respect of which the 9 th respondent herein is the hereditary trustee and the 10 th respondent is the Executive Officer. The petitioners have filed that writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4, namely, the State of Kerala; the Malabar Devaswom Board; the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board; and the Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode to forthwith disburse the arrears of salary as evidenced by Ext.P6 statement dated nil. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse their full salary on the day fixed for disbursement of salary. The respondents in that writ petition, i.e., appellants and respondents 8 to 10, have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. 2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2015, disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 1 to 4 to disburse to the petitioners the arrears of salary as computed by them, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and further to disburse their full salary. Paragraphs 3 to 7 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus; “3. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that by way of Ext.P3 dated 28.02.2009, the Government has taken a decision to approve the pay scale of various categories of employees. It is inter alia contended that the proposal of the Board has been accepted by the Government in that regard. A circular had been issued by the 3 rd respondent on 18.03.2009 by way of Ext.P4 thereby indicating that the scale of pay has been fixed with effect from 01.03.2009. 4. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P3, the 6 th respondent revised the scale of pay of the petitioners, as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2, with effect from 01.03.2009. 4. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P3, the 6 th respondent revised the scale of pay of the petitioners, as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2, with effect from 01.03.2009. Petitioners had submitted a representation before the 2 nd respondent, who, after conducting a study on the matter, took a decision on 20.09.2012 recommending the sub-shrines as independent temples in order to get the support of the management fund. The 3 rd respondent had forwarded the recommendation dated 26.09.2012 by way of Ext.P5 to the 1 st respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 evidences the balance amount due to the petitioners on the basis of fixation of the pay scale as above mentioned. But so far no action has been taken by the respondents to effect payments. 5. Though sufficient opportunity had been granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit, no steps had been taken to file a counter affidavit. 6. Having regard to the factual statement as narrated in the writ petition and in the absence of any counter affidavit in this regard, it is clear that the averments in the writ petition are treated to be admitted. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 supports the stand taken by the petitioners. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and the factual statement as narrated, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to fixation of pay scale and payment of salary in terms with Exts.P3 and P4, which are liable to be paid. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed and accordingly there will be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to disburse to the petitioners, the arrears of the salary as computed by them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and further to disburse the full salary to the petitioners.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials - respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition are before this Court in this writ appeal by contending that in view of the Government orders and circulars governing the field respondents 1 to 7 - writ petitioners are not legally entitled to a direction against the Malabar Devaswom Board for payment of their salary from the Management Fund maintained by the Board. 4. This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Appl. 4. This writ appeal is one filed along with C.M.Appl. No.587 of 2015 for condonation of delay, which was condoned by the order dated 26.06.2015. The writ appeal was admitted on file. Respondents 1 to 7 - writ petitioners entered appearance through counsel and the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 8 th respondent. Respondents 9 and 10 entered appearance through the learned counsel. 5. On 14.10.2015, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, the Division Bench noticed the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that he had instructions to say that a separate appeal was being filed by the Government. After recording the said submission, the Division Bench adjourned the matter, for further consideration of the request of the Malabar Devaswom Board for a stay of operation of the directions contained in the impugned judgment. 6. On 30.10.2015, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, the Division Bench passed the following order; “1. Received the memo to file. 2. For the time being, the directions contained in the impugned judgment shall be complied with by the Government and the Malabar Devaswom Board. It is clarified that MDB may proceed to comply with the judgment, even without waiting for further funds earmarked to satisfy the impugned judgment. All these will be provisional and subject to further orders in the writ appeal. In the meanwhile, the Government is directed to bring the issues raised in this writ appeal as well to the notice of the Committee constituted as per G.O.(Rt) No.3483/15/RD dated 23.07.2015. We may also mention that it will be worthwhile for that Committee to consider as to whether the grouping and classification of temples by the Malabar Devaswom Board, as is stated to have been done, is with due authority. Further, it also needs to be considered as to whether it is appropriate to have the classification based on temples as institutions rather than trustees as the identifying criteria; particular regard being had to the judgment and different orders referred to in W.P.(C)No.1763 of 2015. Two months granted for compliance.” 7. The order dated 30.10.2015 was followed by the order dated 24.02.2016, which reads thus; “The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall file an affidavit on or before 08.03.2016 after releasing of whole amounts covered by the impugned judgment and the order dated 30.10.2015 issued in this writ appeal. Two months granted for compliance.” 7. The order dated 30.10.2015 was followed by the order dated 24.02.2016, which reads thus; “The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall file an affidavit on or before 08.03.2016 after releasing of whole amounts covered by the impugned judgment and the order dated 30.10.2015 issued in this writ appeal. Failing that, it may be noted that this Court may be constrained to pass an order that no Members of the Malabar Devaswom Board and other authorities, including the employees from Commissioner downwards, would be permitted to draw the salaries from the month of March, 2016 onwards.” 8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 - writ petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 8 th respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 9 and 10. 9. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25037 of 2013. 10. The writ petitioners are the temple employees of Sree Meledath Siva Temple, which is a C-grade temple, and Sree Valliyankavu Temple, which is a D-grade temple, which are controlled institutions under the management of Malabar Devaswom Board. They have filed the writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs, mainly relying on Ext.P5 communication dated 26.09.2012 made by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is one issued based on Decision No.83 taken by the Malabar Devaswom Board in its meeting held on 20.09.2012. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board would place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Malabar Devaswom Board and others v. C. Narayanan Namboothiri and others [2024 KER 10614]. 12. In Malabar Devaswom Board [2024:KER:10614] the question raised before a Division Bench of this Court was with regard to the payment of salary to employees of temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board, without reference to the income limits as provided in the relevant Government orders. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the Government is bound to provide funds for payment of salary found due to the employees of such temples, even if the income has exceeded the limits provided in the Government orders. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the Government is bound to provide funds for payment of salary found due to the employees of such temples, even if the income has exceeded the limits provided in the Government orders. The Division Bench noticed that the prayer in the writ petitions was for clearing the salary dues of the temple employees and also to quash the income limit provided in the Government orders, including the Government order dated 03.09.2019. Having considered the contentions advanced at the Bar, the Division Bench found that no grounds have been made out to justify the challenge raised to the income limit provided in the Government order. The Division Bench noticed that the commitment of the Government to meet the financial requirements for paying the salary of the employees in the temples which are controlled institutions under the Malabar Devaswom Board stands substantially met by the provisions made for establishing a welfare fund and for making payments therefrom. At least in the case of temples which have income exceeding the prescribed limit, it would be the primary responsibility of the individual trustees to meet the payments towards salary of temple employees. 13. During the course of arguments, it is not in serious dispute that the payment made by the Malabar Devaswom Board to the hereditary trustee or trustee board of a temple, which is a controlled institution under the Board, is subject to the financial limit fixed by the Government orders, which were in force during the relevant period. None of such Government orders enable the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25037 of 2013, who are the temple employees of Sree Meledath Siva Temple, in which the 9 th respondent is the hereditary trustee and the 10 th respondent is the Executive Officer, to seek a direction against the Malabar Devaswom Board to disburse their arrears of salary shown in Ext.P6 statement. 14. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] , a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 15. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 16. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 17. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, in the absence of a legal right with the writ petitioners to compel the performance of any statutory duty by the Malabar Devaswom Board, for disbursement of their salary as per Ext.P6 statement, the writ of mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge commanding respondents 2 to 4, i.e., the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials, the appellants herein, or even the 1 st respondent State, the 8 th respondent herein, to disburse to the writ petitioners the arrears of salary as computed by them in Ext.P6 statement, cannot be sustained in law. In such circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.25037 of 2013 and the said writ petition is dismissed. We make it clear that the payment made by the Malabar Devaswom Board in terms of the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 30.10.2015 and 24.02.2016 in this writ appeal, in excess of the entitlement of the 9 th respondent hereditary trustee for financial assistance to the temple from the Malabar Devaswom Employees Management Fund for the relevant period, in terms of the Government orders governing the field, shall be repaid by the 9 th respondent hereditary trustee through the 10 th respondent Executive Officer. For that purpose, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board shall make a demand, after quantifying the amount that has to be repaid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case of any default in repaying the said amount, the Board shall initiate recovery proceedings, in accordance with law, against the defaulter.