Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23650 OF 1996
[ CC - 5886/96 ]
O R D E R
SLP (C) NO.21792/96:
The grievance in this special leave petition, filed
against the order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court, made on July 2, 1996 in CMP No.31034/95 in OP
No.10608/93, is two-fold, namely the direction to sanction a
sum of Rs.7,10,212/- incurred by one Shri Raghavan,
Administrator and the direction to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-
being monetary consideration for the work done by Raghavan
as Administrator in conducting the examinations.
Shri Y.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 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 if
the expenditure has been spent in accordance with the
requirements and principles, the same will be sanctioned by
the 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 Raghvan, we feel that the
High Court, Perhaps found it necessary to direct payment of
the said amount in addition to commendation of the work done
by Raghavan. It being a discretion exercised in an
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 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.
The petition is accordingly ordered with the above
observations.
IN SLP (C) NO. /93 (CC-5886/96 ):
Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
In this matter, the petitioner is aggrieved of the
observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid
order. The petitioner states that this Court in Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee vs. Chairman, Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee & Ors. [ (1996) 7 SCC 505 ] has
upheld the action taken by the petitioner and, therefore,
the observations made were not justified or warranted. Those
observations came to be made without any notice to him or
hearing him. We need not pursue the matter at this end. It
would be open to the petitioner to make an application in
the High Court to expunge the remarks and the High Court
would deal with it accordingly.
The petition is accordingly dismissed with the above
liberty.