IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13967 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.SANTHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE K.P.GANGADHARAN RESIDING AT `SOPANAM', CHINTHA NAGAR, KADAMKODE, KARINGARAPULLY, PALAKKAD-678 559. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.R.SANKARAN, S/O.RAVUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, RESIDING AT VELUTHANKATH HOUSE, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD-679 512. 3. N.NATARAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKATTIL HOUSE, VILAYODI, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 103. 4. K.APPU, S/O.THAMY, RESIDING AT KORATTIYIL HOUSE, CHERUVAYKKARA, P.O.BIYYAM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679 589. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R2 TO 4 R1 BY SC SRI. JOHNSON P. JOHN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 13967 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a widow. Her late husband was an employee of the KSRTC. A business was being conducted by the petitioner, in connection with which the co-employees of the petitioner's husband were guarantors. Business floundered and the amount has to be recovered from the sureties, Respondents 2 to 4, who filed suit and obtained a decree for payment of money. In the meantime, the petitioner received the amount due to her husband as DCRG. On the basis of the decree obtained by respondents 2 to 4 a garnishee order was issued to the KSRTC to realise Rs.65,000/-. It appears that KSRTC has paid Rs.65,000/- to respondents 2 to 4. KSRTC has, by Ext.P3, called upon the petitioner to remit the amount of Rs.65,000/-. The complaint of the petitioner is that now the petitioner is not being paid the family pension. According to the petitioner the gratuity payable to pensioners is exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. I heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to convince me that Section 60(1)(g) will come to the petitioner's rescue. He would then submit that at any rate the petitioner has not been paid family pension for WPC.13967/2008. 2 quite sometime and the said amount which has been withheld by the respondent Corporation can be utilised for payment of the amount due on account of the payment made to respondents 2 to 4 on account of petitioner's late husband. He would further submit that after adjusting the amount already paid, the Corporation may be directed to pay the family pension. I would think that the said request is reasonable. After adjusting the amount payable as family pension to the petitioner against the amount payable under Ext.P3 for payment effected by Corporation to respondents 2 to 4, the first respondent will effect payment of any amount withheld from the petitioner. In other words, after adjusting the amount of family pension payable to the petitioner, there will be a direction to the first respondent to pay to the petitioner the family pension, which has either been withheld or which has become subsequently due. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb