IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34157 of 2008(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.SARASAMMA, W/O.VENU P.D.TEACHER, (RETIRED FROM GOVT.UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL), KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM RESIDING AT 'LAVANYA' PERUMON PO, PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER PENSION PAYMENT SUB TREASURY, KOLLAM. 5. THE MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH OF K.S.F.E LTD, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R5 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R5 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R5 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R5 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R5 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.34157 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the service of an aided school with effect from 3.1.2008. However, while sanctioning her retirement benefits, certain amounts have been withheld. The amounts are allegedly due to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited. The petitioner approached this Court with a contention that such amounts allegedly due to the KSFE cannot be recovered from the DCRG, without the consent of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not given any consent to recover any amount from her gratuity. 2. A statement has been filed by the 5th respondent, along with which they have produced an agreement executed by the petitioner for recovery of amounts due to the KSFE from her salary at source and also from her terminal benefits and other benefits. A copy of the said agreement has also been produced by the learned Government Pleader along with a memo. The petitioner does not now dispute the said agreement. Now the W.P.(c)No.34157/08 2 petitioner raises another contention that such recovery cannot be made under proviso to Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, in so far as the Supreme Court has in the decision reported in Radhey Shyam Gupta V. Punjab National Bank and another (CDJ 2008 SC 1851) held so. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for more than one reason. First is that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the premise that the petitioner had not given any consent to recover any amount from her gratuity. It is only when the 5th respondent produced an agreement executed by the petitioner, she has come forward with a case that even with that agreement no amounts can be deducted. As such, the petitioner is a guilty of suppression of material facts. Secondly, in so far as the Kerala Service Rules, which applies to the petitioner, permits recovery of amounts due to the KSFE from the DCRG, the petitioner cannot now escape from that liability, in so far as the petitioner has executed an agreement for recovery of amounts due to the KSFE from the salary of the petitioner as also the terminal and other benefits. Decision relied upon by the petitioner has no W.P.(c)No.34157/08 3 application whatsoever to the facts of this case, in so far as the same is not one considering the provisions of the KSR. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd