K. Vinod Chandran, .J.

1. The appellant was aggrieved by the revenue recovery action taken by the 4th respondent to recover amounts due from the 5th respondent to the 2nd respondent; for which the appellant stood as surety. The appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, finding the recovery initiated to be proper and perfectly legal. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant's claim, regarding he being only one of the sureties and no recovery proceedings having been initiated against the other sureties and the original borrower, could not be sustained, since the liability of the borrower and the sureties are joint and several. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the remedy, if any, to the surety from whom recovery is made is to sue the original defaulter or the other sureties to recover proportionate contribution due from them.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant before us raised a contention that the amounts payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gratuity Act") is not attachable for satisfaction of a decree of a Court or otherwise. The recovery has been attempt