IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 261 of 2009(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- G.V. JOSEPH, S/O. VAREED, GOPURAM HOUSE, KHADIKUDAM.P.O, C & 2 FITTER TECHNICIAN GRADE-I, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, IRUMPANAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL PERSONNAL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. 4. SHERI S. KURIAN, NADUVINEZHATHU HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU, CONVENT JUNCTION, MANJUMMEL.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 5. S. SUNILKUMAR, PUTHENPARAMBU NIKARTHIL, THURAVOOR.P.O, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH SC FOR RAILWAY SRI.JAMES KURIAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.261 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge is against Ext.P8. The petitioner was a surety to a deceased railway employee, who had availed of loan from a Commercial Bank. Default was committed and the Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner, thereupon he represented to the Railway that the liability due to the Bank should be discharged from out of the gratuity amount that is due to the deceased employee. That was rejected by Ext.P8 on the ground that no recovery can be effected from the gratuity amount. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed. 2. He also seeks a declaration that Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, will not protect an employee against his/her personal liability. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the settled position that Gratuity is not attachable. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the interpretation, which the petitioner wants this Court to give to Section 13. For these reasons, I cannot also find fault with the Railways for the stand taken in Ext.P8. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg