IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29003 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.J.MATHEW, S/O.K.M.JOSEPH, KIZHIKKARAN HOUSE, ALANGAD, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- KONGORPILLY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.3847, OLANAD BRANCH, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN-683511. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.29003 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 25th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is an employee of the Coir Board filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the steps taken by the respondent for deduction of an amount of Rs.3,000/- from his monthly salary. The petitioner stood as a surety to a loan transaction. In fact, the principal debtor is none other than the sister of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that if a deduction of Rs.3,000/- is made from his monthly salary, he may not be able to maintain his family. It is further submitted that he is residing in a rented house. Citing the same and such other worthy circumstances even while owning the liability the petitioner sought for a limited interference for the purpose of reducing the amount of monthly recovery from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned standing counsel submitted that being a surety to the loan transaction the petitioner is not legally entitled to raise all such contentions. It is also submitted that as on today an amount which is more than Rs.60,000/- is outstanding towards the said loan account. It is an admitted fact that the principal debtor has committed default in WP(C).No.29003/2010 2 prompt repayment and therefore, being a surety the petitioner cannot attribute any illegality on the action resorted to by the respondent. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is not disowning his liability to discharge the debt and he is only requesting for reduction in the amount sought to be recovered, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- As per Ext.P2, the respondent has requested the Accounts Officer of the Coir Board, the employer of the petitioner, to recover an amount of Rs.3,000/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner until the liability is closed. In view of the facts expatiated earlier, in the interest of justice, the amount sought to be recovered from the monthly salary of the petitioner is reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,500/-. It is made clear that such deduction can be made from the salary of the petitioner till the entire liability is wiped off. In case it is found that such deduction is not sufficient to satisfy the outstanding liability on account of the age of retirement of the petitioner it will be open to the respondents to re-fix the above rate and intimate the same to the Accounts Officer. However, in the interest of justice it will be appropriate to refrain from resorting to such steps for a period of two years. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS