IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 11309 of 2009 Between: N.Laxmana Chary S/o.Venkata Narasaiah NPDCL, Peddapalli Division, Karimnagar District R/o.Peddapalli, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND The Divisional Engineer,Operation Division, NPDCL, Peddapalli,Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent herein in recovering the installment amount of Rs.5150/-per month from the salary of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent not to recover the installment amount Rs.5150/- from the petitioner salary in the month of June 2009 onwards. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANESWARA RAO NIDUMUKKALA Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri N. Ganeswara Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel, I propose to take up this matter for final disposal at this stage itself. The writ petitioner, who was employed as a Line Inspector with the respondent organization, appears to have secured a loan from a private agency for purchasing certain electronic goods. He appears to have given consent for affecting recovery of a sum of Rs.4,650/- per month from his salary and allowances payable and for transmitting the same to the agency from which he has purchased the electronic goods. However, the writ petitioner makes a grievance in this case that at the request and demands made by the supplier of electronic goods, the respondents have started recovering a sum of Rs.5,150/- from his salary and allowances and hence, he instituted this Writ Petition. The arrangement, which the writ petitioner entered into with the supplier of electronic goods and the arrangement, which he made for repaying the loan secured by him on installment basis, is purely in the domain of a contract between them. The respondent being the public authority ought not to have played any role either in the matter of reduction or in the matter of transmitting such amount to the private agencies. The respondent agency has no such binding compulsions as the private contract between the writ petitioner and a 3rd party has got nothing to do with his employment, nor was the respondent organization a party to any such contract. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that since his client has already committed himself for a monthly deduction of Rs.4,650/- from his salary and allowances, by the respondent, if the respondent deducts the said amount and transmits the same to the private agency from which he has purchased electronic goods, as conceded, the same arrangement, perhaps more as a courtesy, be continued by the respondent. The respondent has no power or authority to deduct any amount from the salary and allowances payable by them to their employees without there being any legal compulsions in that regard. With this, Writ Petition No. 11309 of 2009 stands dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th June 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}