STATE OF KERALA ETC. versus GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 18-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ST A TE OF KERALA ETC. 
v. 
GURUVA YUR DEVASWOM MANAGING 
COMMITTEE AND ORS. ETC. 
' 
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978: 
s. I 9-Guruvayur Devaswom-Recruitment of clGrks-Written test 
C cancelled due to leakage of question paper-Interview Board reconstituted-
Clailn for expenditure incurred on examination and rernuneration to 
Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom for service rendered; by him in 
connection with examinations-Held, authority competent to scrutinies the 
amount spent would go into the matter and pass appropriate orders 
D sanctioni11g the amount spent by Administrator in conducting 
examinations-As regards the remuneration to Administrator, it being a 
discretion exercised by High Court in an extra-ordinary situation, order of 
High Court needs no interference, but it would not be treated as a precedent. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
E No. 21792 of 1996. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Kerala High Court 
in C.M.P. No. 31054 of 1995. 
p · 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, G. Prakash and Mrs. Beena 
Prakash for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of,the Court was delivered : 
G 
SLP (C) NO. 21792196: 
The grievance in this special leave petition, filed against the order of 
the Division Bench of the Kerala High Cou1t, made on July 2, 1996 in 
CMP No. 31034195 in OP NO. 10608193, is two-fold, namely, the direction 
to sanction a sum of Rs. 7, I 0,212 incurred by one Shri Raghavan, 
H Administrator and the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000 being monetary 
744 
STA!EOFKERALAi:GURlN AYURDEV ASWOMMANAGINGCOMMITIBE 745 
consideration for the work done by Raghavan as Administrator in conducting A 
the examinations. 
Shri V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, contended 
that the amount of Rs. 7,10,212 spent by Shri Raghavan in connection 
with conducting the examinations would be dealt with in accordance with 
the administrative procedure prescribed by the Dewaswom Committee in 8 
that behalf and the direction for sanction would run counter to the 
administrative procedure prescribed in that behalf and it will create 
unnecessary complications in scrutinising the accounts and passing the 
bills towards the amount spent by Shri Raghavan. It is also assured by 
Shri V.R. Reddy that ifthe expenditure has been spent in accordance with 
the requirements and principles, the same will be sanctioned by the C 
competent authority in that behalf. We need not deal in that behalf at 
length. Suffice it to state that the authority competent to scrutinise the 
amount spent would go into the matter and pass appropriate orders 
sanctioning the amount spent by the Administrator in conducting the 
examinations. 
With regard to the second aspect, namely, the direction to pay 
monetary consideration in a sum of Rs. 35,000 towards the exemplary 
work done by Raghavan, we feel that the High Court, perhaps found it 
necessary to direct payment of the said amount in addition to commendation 
D 
of the work done by Raghavan. It being a discretion exercised in an E 
extraordinary situation, perhaps, we may not incline to interfere with the 
direction. But we make it clear that it would not be treated as a precedent 
in every case wherever an officer on deputation does the work at the 
directions of the Court; he would also be entitled to monetary considerations 
in addition to the normal service and the salary received for doing that 
service. We take this decision for the reason that perhaps the officer did F 
not bargain for such direction for payment in rendering the service and 
any notice to him would put him in embarrassing situation and the Court 
also will not be in a position to say anything when the matter goes on 
notice. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction 
issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in this behalf. 
G 
The petition is accordingly ordered with the above observations. 
IN SLP (C) NO. 23650 /96 (CC-5886/96): 
Pennission to file special leave petition is granted. 
H 
746 
S\JPREMECOURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
In this matter, the petitioner is aggrieved of the observations made 
by the Division Bench in the afotesaid order. 'the petitioner states that this 
Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. Chairman, 
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Ors., [ 1996) 7 SCC 
505 has upheld the action taken by the petitioner ai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.