M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J.@mdashRespondent was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 9th February 1960 to 9th June 1964 and from 22nd March 1977 to 30th November 1979. As an Ex-M.L.A, he was receiving pension under the provisions of the Kerala payment of Pension to Members of Legislature Act, 1976 from 1st December 1979 onwards. He was nominated as President of the Travancore Devaswom Board and he assumed Office with effect from 14th September 1992. The Accountant General (first Appellant) issued Ext. P-1 order to the effect that Respondent being a recipient of remuneration as President of the Travancore Devaswom Board is not entitled to receive pension as Ex-M.L.A. and that he is entitled only to pension equal to the difference between pension as Ex-M.L.A. and the remuneration to which he is entitled to as president of the Devaswom Board. In Ext. P-1 it is stated that as the Respondent is getting a remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per mensem he is not entitled to Pension of Rs. 900 per mensem as Ex-M.L.A. while holding the post of the president of Travancore Devasworn Board. Respondent filed O.P. 14874, of 1993 challenging Ext. P-1 order. The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition holding that Respondent is entitled to pension as Ex-M.L.A. despite he having been nominated as the President of the Travancore Devaswom Board judgment is assailed in the Writ Appeal.
2. Respondent is denied pension as Ex-M.L.A. on the ground that he is receiving remuneration from the Devaswom Board which is a local authority under the Government. Contention of the Appellants is that Travancore Deveswom Board is a local authority coming within the purview of Section 2(2)(iii) of the Kerala Payment of Pension to Members of Legislature Act, 1976 and that the amount paid to the president of the Devaswom Board has to be treated as a consideration for his service and as such it would come within the purview of the term "any remuneration" referred to in Section 2(2)(iii) of the Act.
3. The question that arises for consideration is whether Travancore Devaswom Board can be considered as a local authority. Constitution of the Travancore Devaswam Board is as per Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,1950 (Act XV of 1950). Section 11 the electionprovides for of the President of the Board. As per Section 11, Hindus among the Council of Ministers shall nominate one of the members of the Board as its President. Section 7 provides for disqualification for membership. Section 7(3) makes the position clear that any official-holder or a servant of Government, a local authority, Devaswom Board, an incorporated or unincorporated Devaswom or the trustee of a Hindu Religious Endowment is not eligible for election or nomination as a member of the Board. This by itself is sufficient to hold that Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be considered as a local authority.
4. Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines "local authority" as follows:
local authority'' shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.
The above definition shows that local authority is an entirely different concept and it is not possible to hold that Travancore Devaswom Board can be considered as a local authority.
5. Travancore Devaswom Board is an authority constituted u/s 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Act 15 of 1950 (for short "the HRI Act"). The statute was enacted to make provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and funds, (vide preamble). Government has no control over the Board. Removal of a member of the Board is provided u/s 9 of the HRI Act. A member of the Board can be removed from his office only by the High Court on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity on an application made to the High Court by the Advocate-General or a person belonging to the Hindu Community. As the Government does not come into the picture and as it has no control over the Board even with regard to the remuneration that has to be paid to the President and as it does not perform any function for and on behalf of the Government, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Board is a local authority. Ext. P-1 cannot be sustained as it cannot be held that the Respondent was in receipt of any remuneration from Government, Corporation or local authority.
6. u/s 2(1)(i) of the Kerala Payment of Pension to Members of Legislature Act, 1976 a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly is entitled to pension. u/s 2(2)(iii) an Ex-M.L.A. can be denied pension under the act, if he is employed on salary under the Government of India or any State Government or any corporation owned or controlled by the Government of India or any state Government, or any local authority or becomes otherwise entitled to any remuneration from such Government,corporation or local authority. As Travancore Devaswom Board is nbt a local authority, Ext. P-1 order that Respondent is not entitled to pension as Ex-M.L.A. while holding the post of President of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be legally sustained. The learned Single Judge was justified in quashing Ext.P-1 and allowing the Original Petition.
The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
*A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series).
