Temple salary fixation must follow approved establishment norms and Commissioner oversight under the governing service rules.

The Madras HC explained that a temple governed by the Act and service rules could not fix employee salaries independently of the approved establishment schedule and Commissioner's oversight. The statutory scheme required the executive authority to prepare the schedule, but approval and prior permission were necessary for changes, and the Government could prescribe percentage norms for salary and establishment expenditure. On income computation, the Court treated cash and kind contributions alike, held that gold receipts could not be excluded merely as capital receipts, and rejected the claim that all expenditure must first be deducted. The salary fixation exercise was required to proceed on the temple's actual finances and the Commissioner's report.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authorities had power under the statutory scheme and the service rules to regulate and approve the salary structure and establishment expenditure of the temple's employees; (ii) Whether the income available for fixing salary could include receipts such as gold donations and whether expenditure could be deducted as claimed by the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the authorities had power under the statutory scheme and the service rules to regulate and approve the salary structure and establishment expenditure of the temple's employees.

Analysis: The temple was held to be a religious institution governed by the Act and the service rules. The scheme under the Act, including the provisions relating to establishment schedule, budget control, and fixing of standard scale of expenditure, showed that the executive authority had to prepare the schedule, but it required approval of the Commissioner and could not be altered without prior permission. Rule 5-A permitted the Government to fix percentage norms for salaries and establishment expenditure, and the Court held that the respondents were not acting without authority when they required a revised proposal for salary fixation.

Conclusion: The authorities were held to have the power to regulate and approve the salary structure, and the petitioner was directed to submit a revised proposal.

Issue (ii): Whether the income available for fixing salary could include receipts such as gold donations and whether expenditure could be deducted as claimed by the petitioner.

Analysis: The Court held that contributions in cash or kind could be treated alike for the purpose of income, and gold receipts could not be excluded merely as capital receipt. The contention that income should be computed only after deducting all expenditure was rejected, subject only to the positive factual findings already recorded by the learned Commissioner. The Court also emphasised that the fixation exercise had to be fair and based on the temple's actual financial position.

Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge on these aspects was rejected in substance, and the authorities were directed to consider the full materials, including the Commissioner's report, while fixing salary.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with directions requiring the petitioner to place a revised salary proposal before the competent authority, while upholding the general percentage framework under the service rules and leaving the final fixation to be made in accordance with law and the Commissioner's report.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory rules require an approved establishment schedule and permit government-fixed percentage norms for salary expenditure, the temple administration cannot claim an unfettered right to fix salaries independently of the Commissioner's approval and the regulatory framework.

---