1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.473/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4491/2007 Smt. Rekha Singhal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. & Ors. Date of order :: 20.10.2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Bansal for appellants. *** Heard Shri Ashok Bansal, counsel for appellants. This appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the Single Bench in civil writ petition no.4491/2007 on 4.11.2008. Gyandra Kumar Singhal was an employee of the respondents. He died on 30.3.2007. Writ petition was filed by his wife claiming terminal dues payable to her late husband. It appears that during his life time, deceased had obtained various loans and had furnished an undertaking with the respondents to make payment of loan to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., which was obtained by the deceased under the scheme available to the employees under Upbhokta Rin Yojna (Consumer Loan Scheme) out of his Provident Fund (C.P.F./G.P.F.), gratuity, pension and other retiral dues. Similar undertaking was furnished by him to deduct the loan amount from his salary also. It appears that 2 the loan was advanced in recognition of the fact that deceased was an employee of the respondents. While entertaining the writ petition, an order was passed by the Single Bench of this Court on 25.6.2007. At that time, it was submitted by the petitioners' counsel that amount of leave encashment would come to approximately Rs.2 lacs and Group Insurance approximately Rs.1.5 lacs, that would be sufficient for recovery of loan amount, as such other retiral dues be ordered to be paid. Consequently, it was directed by the Single Bench of this Court that only the amount of leave encashment and Group Insurance be withheld and remaining terminal dues and family pension be paid to the petitioners i.e. legal representatives of the deceased employee Gyandra Kumar Singhal. The loan amount was paid to the bank. The writ petition has been finally decided by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.11.2008. It has been found that amount of Rs.3,17,016/- was paid to the widow of the deceased in September, 2008. Interest at the rate of 9% has been ordered to be paid on the aforesaid amount by the Single Bench from the date it was due till actual payment was made in September, 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the instant intra court appeal has been preferred. Shri Ashok Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has submitted that amount 3 could not have been deducted by the employer and paid to bank in view of provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thus amount paid to the petitioners is in contravention to proviso (g) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, it is apparent that this Court has directed for payment of remaining dues except leave encashment and Group Insurance amount vide order dated 25.6.2007 and rest of the amount has been paid in September, 2008 on which 9% interest was ordered to be paid by the Single Bench. We find on record that an undertaking was furnished by the deceased that amount may be deducted out of his provident fund, gratuity, pension and other retiral dues, which may be payable to him. The loan of Rs.2 lacs was advanced by virtue of his being employee of the respondent-Corporation. It is a practice of the respondents to obtain no dues certificate with respect to such dues and only thereafter to release the retiral dues. Once the undertaking was furnished by deceased employee, the amount could have been deducted and this Court has adequately safeguarded the interest of the petitioners vide order dated 25.6.2007. Even at that time, the submission of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners was that amount of leave encashment and Group Insurance be withheld and 4 rest of the amount be ordered to be paid, accordingly, it was so ordered, thus the amount which has been paid to the bank is in terms of the undertaking furnished by the deceased employee as also in terms of the interim order dated 25.6.2007 of this Court. We find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.11.2008 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioners can have no rescue by invoking the provisions of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The appeal is bereft of merits and same is hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (ARUN MISHRA),J. RS/-