Interesting HR&CE legal case on Othuvar salary

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/article2877565.ece

The Madras High Court Bench here has quashed a Government Order passed by Tamil Development, Culture and Religious Endowments Department on October 11, 2006 denying higher pay scale to a section of employees of Bhagavathi Amman Temple in Agastheeswaram Taluk of Kanyakumari district after terming it to be a 'minor temple.'

RTI evidence

Disposing of a writ petition filed by an Othuwar of the temple, Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu rejected the argument that it was a minor temple. He pointed out that information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act 2005 disclosed that its name was found in the list of major temples under the control of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Department.

Revision of pay scale

The judge said that the petitioner, M. Balasubramaniam, was appointed as Othuwar in the temple on September 1, 1983 on a basic pay of Rs. 265.

In May 2004, the Government revised the pay scale for 'othuwar' category employees by fixing the basic pay at Rs. 3,200 with effect from July 1997.

Hence, he made a representation to the government to re-fix his salary.

But it was not considered and hence he filed a writ petition in 2005.

The High Court disposed of that writ petition after recording the HR and CE Department's stand that the representation was rejected on the ground that he was a temporary employee.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the department to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's plea after ascertaining whether he was a temporary or a permanent employee.

Subsequently, the Government Order under challenge in the present writ petition was passed stating that the petitioner was not entitled to higher pay scale as Bhagavathi Amman Temple was not a major temple and that the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of joining service that he would not claim the scale of pay fixed for Othuwar working in major temples.

Rejecting both the reasons given by the government, Justice K. Ravichandra Baabu said that the question of major or minor temple ought not to have been raised as the high court while disposing of an earlier writ petition had ordered only to determine whether the petitioner was a permanent or a temporary employee.

Therefore, he remitted the matter back to the government for reconsideration within six weeks.

On the contention that the petitioner had given an undertaking, the judge said that such undertaking could not be used to prevent the petitioner from claiming his rights in the manner known to law.