IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32464 of 2010(G)
1. V.P.AJAYAKUMAR, INSPECTOR,KSRTC,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF
3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
5. THE SECRETARY,
6. K.R.VISHNU RAJ,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
For Respondent :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC KSTW CO.OP SOCIET
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.32464 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner stood as a surety to the sixth respondent for availing a
loan of Rs.65,000/- from the fifth respondent. The loan was availed by the
sixth respondent on 17.3.2001. The sixth respondent defaulted repayment
towards the said loan account. Thereupon, the fifth respondent was
constrained to resort to coercive steps. As part of the same, at the instance
of the fifth respondent, deductions have been effecting from the salary of
the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the sixth respondent retired from service
on 31.7.2008. The fifth respondent has already resorted to arbitration
proceedings and that culminated in Ext.P1 award in ARC.No.822/2008.
Even after passing the said award, the sixth respondent did not discharge
his debt. Thereupon, demand notices have been issued to the petitioner,
the sixth respondent and other sureties.
2. It is a fact that even now, the sixth respondent has not
discharged his liability in terms of Ext.P1 award. This Writ Petition has
been filed mainly with the prayer to direct the first respondent to recover
the amount due to the fifth respondent from the retirement benefits due to
W.P.(C) NO.32464/2010 2
the sixth respondent and to remit the same to the fifth respondent society in
order to discharge the entire liability towards the loan availed by the sixth
respondent from the fifth respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned
standing counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. Though the fifth
respondent who is the principal debtor received notice in this proceedings,
he has not chosen to enter appearance.
4. On 1.11.2010, this Court passed an interim order directing the
first respondent to withhold an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the DCRG
and other benefits admitted to the sixth respondent and also not to effect
further deduction from the salary of the petitioner. In compliance with the
said directions, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been withheld from the
retirement benefits admitted to the sixth respondent. As already noticed
hereinbefore, the sixth respondent even after the receipt of notice in the
proceedings has not entered appearance. The learned standing counsel
appearing for the fifth respondent brought to my notice the contents in
Exts.R5(c) and R5(e). Exts.R5(c) and R5(e) would reveal that the sixth
respondent has already given his consent for effecting recovery from the
W.P.(C) NO.32464/2010 3
retirement benefits due to him from the first respondent, his employer in
case any amount is outstanding towards the aforesaid loan account. As
already noticed, an amount of 1,67,294/- is still outstanding towards the
loan availed by the sixth respondent. In view of the facts obtaining from
the rival contentions, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:-
The first respondent shall remit an amount of Rs.1,67,294/- from the
amount which has been withheld viz., Rs.2,00,000/-, from the amount
payable to the sixth respondent towards his retirement benefits including
DCRG, into his loan account No.BAL 40443 with the fifth respondent at
any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. In view of the above direction, no further deduction from
the salary of the petitioner shall be effected for the purpose of discharging
the liability of the sixth respondent. It will be open to the petitioner to
resort to appropriate remedies for getting any amount due from the sixth
respondent arising out of the above mentioned loan transaction.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.32464/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C) NO.32464/2010 5
September, 2010