IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29429 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CIGI ANNIE MATHEW, H.S.A HINDI, ST. THOMAS H.S THOTTAKKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LALGI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. D. UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D CLERK, GOVT. H.S.S. CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MUJEEB RAHMAN, L.D CLERK, O/O ASST. ENGINEER, P.W.D OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, ADHYAPAKA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 794, H.O. PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. * ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R4: THE PRINCIPAL, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHANGANASSERY. *ADDL.R5: THE HEAD MASTER, GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, CHANGANASSERY. * ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/11/08. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX GEORGE SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL ADDL.R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29429 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary demands made by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition mainly with the following prayer:- “to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, or direction or orders directing the 3rd respondent not to take any extra amount other than the usual loans amount from the petitioner on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondent defaulted installments.” 2. On 20.11.2008, this Court passed an interim order directing the Controlling Officer of the first respondent viz., the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Changanassery to ensure that no salary or other amounts is released to the first respondent until further orders . Based on the said order the Controlling Officer is not drawing and disbursing salary to the first respondent. So also, the controlling officer has not drawn and disbursed any other amount. Subsequently, the first respondent has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Changanassery to PTM Government Higher Secondary School, WPC.29429/2008 : 2 : Velloor in Kottayam District. In the light of the interim order dated 20.11.2008, the Controlling Officer of the 1st respondent viz., the Headmaster of PTM High School, Velloor is also not drawing and disbursing the salary or any other amount to the first respondent. Earlier, in the year 2006 the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had availed loan to the tune of Rs.1 lakh each on mutual and reciprocative suretyship. The petitioner has discharge his liability arising out of loan transaction. According to the petitioner, the first and second respondents have wilfully defaulted repayment and ultimately, it has resulted in recovery from his pay. For more than two years deductions have been effected from his salary at the instance of the 3rd respondent and for the purpose of discharging their liability. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that in case the amount due by way of salary and other benefits, otherwise payable to the first respondent and withheld by virtue of the the interim order dated 20.11.2008 are drawn and remitted to Adhyapaka Co- operative Bank Ltd.No.794, it would be more than sufficient to WPC.29429/2008 : 3 : discharge the entire liability. In view of the said submission made on behalf of the first respondent, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of. The controlling officer of the first respondent viz., the Headmaster of PTM Government Higher Secondary School, Velloor is directed to draw entire salary due and also any other amount due for payment to the petitioner through proper bills, but shall not be disburse the amount to the first respondent. The 3rd respondent is given liberty to file a statement before the said controlling authority of the first respondent showing the details of the outstanding amount towards the loan accounts viz., MTL 2/280 and HEL/14992. On receipt of such a statement from the 3rd respondent, the controlling officer shall remit the amount required to discharge the entire liability of the first respondent arising out of the said loan transactions. Needless to say that the balance amount if any, after discharging liability, shall be disbursed to the first respondent and thereafter, the first respondent shall be paid his monthly salary in accordance with law. 4. In the case of the petitioner admittedly, he has WPC.29429/2008 : 4 : already discharged his liability arising out of the loan transaction. It is true that he was a co-surety to loans availed by the respondents 1 and 2. In view of the directions issued above there is no need to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner for the purpose of discharging his liability as surety to the first respondent. The question is whether the salary of the petitioner is to be deducted for the purpose of discharging the liability of the second respondent towards the 3rd respondent . As per the interim order dated 20.11.2008 this Court granted time till 31.3.2008 to the second respondent to pay off the entire outstanding amount in relation to the loan availed by him from the 3rd respondent. As per the said order the Controlling officer of the second respondent namely, the Assistant Engineer, PWD (Roads Section) Changanassery was directed to ensure that prompt recovery would fallow on defaulting payment of any of the installments by the second respondent, as directed, on intimation from the 3rd respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that in terms of the interim order, due intimation has WPC.29429/2008 : 5 : been given to the controlling officer of the second respondent regarding the failure of the second respondent to comply with the direction in the said interim order dated 20.11.2008. In case, the controlling Officer of the second respondent on intimation from the 3rd respondent had taken steps for effecting recovery from the salary of the second respondent and to remit the same to the 3rd respondent for discharging the liability of the second respondent the controlling officer of the second respondent shall continue to do so till the entire liability of the second respondent is wiped off. For that purpose it will be open to the 3rd respondent to file a detailed statement with respect to the amount due from the second respondent towards the loan account, before the controlling officer of the 2nd respondent. In case, the controlling officer of the second respondent had not taken any such steps, the said officer shall take steps forthwith to draw the salary and remit the same with the 3rd respondent till the entire liability is wiped off. It is made clear that till the entire liability of the second respondent towards the 3rd respondent is wiped off, the controlling officer of the second respondent shall not WPC.29429/2008 : 6 : disburse the salary to the second respondent. Once the entire liability of the second respondent is wiped off the controlling officer shall start payment of salary to the second respondent in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy for realization of the amount recovered from him at the instance of the 3rd respondent for disbursing the liability of respondent Nos.1 and 2, from the first and second respondents, in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P. A to Judge