IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20643 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- B.Praveen .. Petitioner And The Divisional Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL, AP Transco, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in effecting recovery of the alleged dues of respondent Nos.2 and 3 alleged to be payable by the petitioner from his monthly salary with effect from the month of June, 2011 though there is a bona fide dispute with regard to the claims of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and though they failed to furnish the statement of account of the alleged loans of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct respondent No.1 to pay the deducted amount. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is working as a Lineman in respondent No.1 organization. Respondent No.1 is his Pay Officer. In the months of August, 2008 and August, 2010, he obtained two personal loans i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,45,000/- from respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively with an undertaking to deduct monthly instalments from his salary to the credit of the above loans. But respondent Nos.2 and 3 illegally claimed that they advanced an amount of Rs.2,87,040/- and Rs.3,53,280/- and asked respondent No.1 to deduct Rs.5,980/- and Rs.7,360/- for 48 months respectively totalling Rs.13,340/- per month. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has been deducting Rs.13,340/- per month from out of the total salary of Rs.19,338/- of the petitioner. Though he represented to the respondents that he obtained only Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,45,000/- from respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively and requested respondent No.1 to deduct less amount towards monthly instalments, respondent No.1 did not consider his request and continuously deducting Rs.13,340/- per month. He requested respondent No.1 to stop the recovery till his actual due amount payable to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is settled but in vain. So, he issued a legal notice, dated 15.02.2011, to the respondents. Having received the said notice, respondent No.1 stopped the recovery of amount for the months of April and May, 2011 but respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to settle the actual due amount payable to him. Again, respondent No.1 started to recover the amount from the month of June, 2011. When the petitioner personally contacted respondent No.1, he told that respondent Nos.2 and 3 requested him to deduct the amounts and accordingly, started to deduct the amounts from the month of June, 2011. Respondent No.1 ignored the fact that there is a dispute with regard to the due amount payable to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also Section 60 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 60 C.P.C., there is a prohibition for attachment of salary of an employee; that without considering the request of the petitioner, respondent No.1 is continuously deducting Rs.13,340/- per month; that the petitioner is disputing about the liability of claim of Rs.2,87,040/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.3,53,280/- to respondent No.3; and that there is no infringement of legal or statutory right of the petitioner. 4. Sri Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, contended that in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is deducting the salary of the petitioner. 5. It seems that the petitioner has borrowed certain amounts from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and on their request, the salary of the petitioner is being attached and respondent No.1 is effecting deductions at the rate of Rs.13,340/- per month from out of the total salary of Rs.19,338/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that the attachment is not in tune with Section 60 C.P.C. That aspect of the case has to be decided by respondent No.1 in accordance with the provisions of Section 60 C.P.C. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate decision in deducting the salary of the petitioner in terms of Section 60 C.P.C. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.20643 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD