9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Power of official respondents over the fixation of salary payable to the employees of the Temple. 2. Validity and applicability of Government Orders regarding salary fixation. 3. Element of fairness in the petitioner's action regarding salary payment. Summary: Issue 1: Power of Official Respondents Over Fixation of Salary The controversy involves the power of the official respondents over the fixation of salary payable to the employees of the Temple. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 257, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Department, dated 10.06.1998, fixing the scale of pay for temple employees. This was challenged by the priests, leading to a series of litigations. The Court directed the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for salary as per the Government Order. The petitioner argued that respondents 1 and 2 lack the authority to fix salaries, relying on Section 55 of the H.R.&C.E. Act read with Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Issue 2: Validity and Applicability of Government OrdersThe respondents argued that the petitioner Temple, being a religious institution under Sections 6(20) and 6(18) of the H.R.&C.E. Act, is subject to directives under Section 27 of the Act. They contended that the Government Orders are valid, issued under Section 116(2) of the H.R.&C.E. Act. Rule 5-A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964, mandates every religious institution to have a schedule of establishment approved by the Commissioner, limiting the expenditure on salaries within prescribed norms. The Court upheld the Government Orders and the percentage ratio fixed for different grades of Temples, stating that the Government has the power to fix norms for salary expenditure. Issue 3: Element of Fairness in Petitioner's ActionThe Court emphasized the need for fairness in the petitioner's action, noting that the salaries paid to the employees were meager. The petitioner had proposed appointing a retired Judge to ascertain income and fix reasonable pay scales. The Court found no fairness in the petitioner's action of paying low salaries and stressed that employees should not suffer in performing their duties. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a proposal for salary fixation within four weeks, considering the report of the learned Commissioner and relevant materials. The second respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, ensuring the interim arrangement continues until the final decision. Conclusion:The Writ Petition was disposed of with specific directions for the petitioner to submit a proposal for salary fixation, the second respondent to consider the proposal and pass orders, and the continuation of the interim arrangement until the final decision. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
