C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.

The petitioner, a retired employee of the 1st Corporation, is seeking declaration with respect to his entitlement for getting payment of the gratuity amounts due to him along with interest, without any deduction/recovery in view of the decision of this Court in Kunjumohammed V.A. v. KSFE Ltd. and Others, 2009 (4) KHC 185 : 2010 (1) KLT SN 70. A consequential relief by way of direction for effecting the payment is also sought for. While in service, the petitioner along with a co-worker stood as surety for a loan availed by one Sri. Rajendran Nair from 2nd respondent. Consequent to default committed by the loanee in repayment, certain amounts were recovered from the salary of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent initiated revenue recovery steps and Ext. P2 notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner approached the 'Lok Ayukta' challenging the recovery steps, mainly raising a contention that the steps were initiated only against him, despite the fact the co-surety is still in service. The 'Lok Ayukta' passed Ext. P3 interim direction restraining the 1st respondent from making any deduction from the amount of pensionary benefits due to the petitioner and from attaching any of the properties belonging to him. It is stated that, despite such an order, the 1st respondent insisted for execution of a consent letter for disbursal of the terminal benefits due to the petitioner, agreeing to recover from such benefits the arrears due to the 2nd respondent. Accordingly the petitioner became compelled to execute a consent letter. But the DCRG due to the petitioner was not sanctioned for payment at that time. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a request to cancel the consent letter, which according to him was obtained only by way of coercion. It is complained that the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner was not disbursed, even after the lapse of more than 6 years. Hence this writ petition is filed.

2. The petitioner relies on the decision in Kunju Mohammed's case (supra) for contending that, even if a surety agrees to recover the amounts out of the gratuity, such an agreement is not enforceable since the amount of gratuity is made free from any attachments.

3. The 1st respondent in their counter-affidavit had contended that, at the time of sanctioning the loan, the petitioner had given authorisation permitting the 2nd respondent to effect recovery from the DCRG. Since such a consent was willingly given to the KSFE knowing about its consequence, the amount is liable to be recovered from the DCRG due. Further, the petitioner had already withdrawn the complaint filed before the 'Lok Ayukta' and the directions contained in Ext. P3 order is no more in force. The 1st respondent extended that, the judgment in Kunju Mohammed's case (supra) deals with the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereas by virtue of a notification issued by the Government the 1st respondent corporation stands exempted from the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Hence it is contended that the law declared in Kunju Mohammed's case (supra) is not applicable.

4. In the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent it is contended that, various amounts were already recovered from the sureties and the total balance outstanding is only a sum of Rs.2,45,270/-, as on 30/06/2013. The petitioner is liable to make payment of the said amount along with interest, in terms of the agreement executed at the time of availing the loan. It is specifically stated that all the sureties including the petitioner had given consent to recover the amounts from their terminal benefits and such consents were countersigned by the authorities of the 1st respondent. As per the agreement and the consent letter issued, the amount in arrears is liable to be recovered from the DCRG. Hence it is contended that the attachment effected on the amount of DCRG, under provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, is valid and sustainable.

5. The 3rd respondent had