High Court Kerala High Court

K.J.Mathew vs Kongorpilly Farmers Service … on 25 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.J.Mathew vs Kongorpilly Farmers Service … on 25 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29003 of 2010(A)


1. K.J.MATHEW,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KONGORPILLY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP.
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :25/11/2010

 O R D E R
                            C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
                        ---------------------------------------
                         W.P(C)No.29003 of 2010
                        ----------------------------------------
                       Dated 25th November, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner who is an employee of the Coir Board filed this

writ petition on being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent for

deduction of an amount of Rs.3,000/- from his monthly salary. The

petitioner stood as a surety to a loan transaction. In fact, the principal

debtor is none other than the sister of the petitioner. The contention of

the petitioner is that if a deduction of Rs.3,000/- is made from his

monthly salary, he may not be able to maintain his family. It is further

submitted that he is residing in a rented house. Citing the same and such

other worthy circumstances even while owning the liability the petitioner

sought for a limited interference for the purpose of reducing the amount

of monthly recovery from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/-.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned standing counsel submitted that being a surety

to the loan transaction the petitioner is not legally entitled to raise all

such contentions. It is also submitted that as on today an amount which

is more than Rs.60,000/- is outstanding towards the said loan account.

It is an admitted fact that the principal debtor has committed default in

WP(C).No.29003/2010 2

prompt repayment and therefore, being a surety the petitioner cannot

attribute any illegality on the action resorted to by the respondent.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is not disowning his

liability to discharge the debt and he is only requesting for reduction in the

amount sought to be recovered, I am inclined to dispose of this writ

petition as hereunder:-

As per Ext.P2, the respondent has requested the Accounts

Officer of the Coir Board, the employer of the petitioner, to recover an

amount of Rs.3,000/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner until the

liability is closed. In view of the facts expatiated earlier, in the interest of

justice, the amount sought to be recovered from the monthly salary of the

petitioner is reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,500/-. It is made clear that

such deduction can be made from the salary of the petitioner till the entire

liability is wiped off. In case it is found that such deduction is not

sufficient to satisfy the outstanding liability on account of the age of

retirement of the petitioner it will be open to the respondents to re-fix the

above rate and intimate the same to the Accounts Officer. However, in

the interest of justice it will be appropriate to refrain from resorting to

such steps for a period of two years.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge

TKS