IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3722 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S.BHAGAVATHY,AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.RAJENDRAN,NADUVILE THOPPIL,ENNAKKADU, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA SENIOR SECURITY ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE, KOTTAYA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING,KOTTAYAM. 4. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (T.R.) O/O.THE G.M.T.D.,B.S.N.L. ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SM.T SUDHA DEVI BY SC FOR EPF SRI. JOY THATTIL ITTOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 3722 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is facing recovery proceedings from his salary. The said recovery is initiated on the orders of the 4th respondent for realising the dues from the petitioner. It is stated in the writ petition that, challenging the demand made by the BSNL from the petitioner towards the telephone bill, petitioner has already filed a suit as O.S. No.319/08 before the Munsiff court Chengannur. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit the recovery is sought to be effected. 2. However, even according to the petitioner, the Civil Court has not passed any order restraining the recovery of the dues. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the 4th respondent in requesting the 3rd respondent employer to effect recovery from the salary of the petitioner and remit it WP(c).No.3722/09 /2/ to them. I my view, since on the same cause of action the petitioner has already moved before the civil court, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court itself and to obtain appropriate orders. Therefore, without prejudice to that right and leaving open the contentions, the writ petition is closed. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/