IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 20503 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PEETHAMBARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT MANGALATH VEEDU, ELAMBA P.O., AVANAVANCHERI, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PH DIVISION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 146. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERIYANKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 304. 4. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, DEVAGRAHAM, ELAMBA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20503 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 19 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner pertains to compensation imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No.64/2004, which ultimately got merged with the decision of this court in a Criminal Revision Petition. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was ordered to be paid as compensation in a case which was convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person having 60% permanent disability. He is working as a Peon in the office of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he had other liabilities due with respect to Bank loans and considerable amounts of recovery W.P.(C).20503/10-K -2- is being effected from the salary. In Ext.P6 order, the 3rd respondent had issued directions to the 2nd respondent to recover the entire amount of Rs.1 lakh along with interest from the salary of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was restrained from disbursing any amount by way of salary to the petitioner. In compliance with Ext.P6, the petitioner was denied of any amount as salary, and hence he is approaching this court. 3. Through an interim order issued by this court on 3.9.2010 the 2nd respondent was directed to disburse 1/4th of the amount due to the petitioner out of the total amount of salary withheld, on a provisional basis. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent admitting that the prohibitory order does not mean a total prohibition in payment of entire salary due to the incumbent, and in such case the drawing officer is at liberty to calculate the amounts recoverable from the salary and can take a decision with respect to the amount which can be deducted. Particulars of salary being drawn by the petitioner is also produced along with the statement, which will indicate that net salary being drawn by the petitioner is Rs.8,427/-. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that total prohibition from payment of salary will put the W.P.(C).20503/10-K -3- petitioner to severe prejudice and this eventually result in denial of fundamental rights of the petitioner protected under the Constitution of India. At the same time, going by provisions contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the recovery steps now initiated could not be assailed on any legally tenable ground. 5. In the given situation, taking note of contentions raised by the 3rd respondent, it is made clear that the 2nd respondent can proceed with recovery from the salary of the petitioner, on fixing a reasonable amount which can be recovered from the monthly salary of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that fixation of such amount shall not be less than 1/3rd of the net salary payable to the petitioner. 6. Needless to say that appropriation of amounts already withheld shall be made considering the proportion at which the salary is going to be recovered. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb