IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1779 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN PANICKER AGED 33 YEARS, MANCHATHAPPALLIL, KARUVATTA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. NO.S/357558M RFM/EFS HQ 26 SECTOR, ASSAM RIFLES, PIN-932560 C/O. 99 APO. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. PIN-110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES, (DGAR), SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA-793011. 3. GENERAL OFFICER, COMMANDING IN CHIEF, ASSAM RIFLES, EASTERN COMMAND, FORT WILLIAM, KOLKATTA-21. PIN-700021. 4. THE COMMANDANT-1, ASSAM RIFLES, C/O. 99 APO, PIN-932560. 5. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIAN, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690502. 6. RANI LAKSHMI, D/O. GEETHA, AGED 28 YEARS, VRINDAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH.P.O., MUTHUKULAM-690506. SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASGI ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 1779 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a rifle-man working in the Assam Rifles. He is aggrieved by the action of his employer in deducting 22% and 5.5% per month from his salary for payment as maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is based on the provisions under the Army Act, 1950, which is not applicable to the Assam Rifles. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext. P5 order of the 3rd respondent as it is the one passed without jurisdiction and authority of law and also in violation the principles of natural justice, so as to secure the ends of justice. (ii) Consequently direct the 5th respondent not to effect any recovery from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P5 proceedings of the 5th respondent, so as to secure the ends of justice.” Even assuming that the petitioner's contentions are sustainable, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner to interfere with the action of the employer insofar as the deduction from the salary of the petitioner is only to pay maintenance to the wife and minor child of the petitioner himself. If the petitioner has any case that he is not liable to maintain his wife and minor child, it is for him to approach the Family Court and to get necessary orders in that regard and produce it before the employer. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.