1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record.

2. The petitioner, having served the second respondent, retired on 31.10.2013 as Station Master. While he was in service, in 2001, along with two others, he stood guarantee to the loan obtained by one of his colleagues from the first respondent Bank.

3. Having committed default, the principal borrower retired from service in 2009 and later died in 2011. Two other sureties, too, also retired in 2011 and 2012 respectively.

4. In 2013, after his retirement, the petitioner sought a ‘No Liability Certificate’ from his employer, who, in turn, issued Ext.P2 Liability Certificate dated 26.09.2014. Among the liabilities mentioned in the said certificate, item No. 4 pertains to the loan to which the petitioner stood guarantee way back in 2001. Aggrieved, seeking removal of item No.4 from Ext.P2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, first, that the entire loan has been barred by limitation; second, that by letting all other people retire, the first respondent Bank destroyed the legal options of the petitioner to have the recovery either from the principal borrower or from the guarantors or all of them by way of restitution or contribution. The learned counsel, in the alternative, has submitted that the petitioner earlier authorised the first respondent, in terms of Section 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (‘the Act’ for brevity), to deduct the loan amount only from his salary, but not from his retirement benefits.

6. Since the respondent Bank has communicated to the second respondent, the petitioner’s employer, to deduct the loan amount from the D.C.R.G. to be paid to the petitioner, the learned counsel contends that the salary as has been mentioned in Section 37 of the Act does not extend to the retirement benefits, especially D.C.R.G. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Surendran v. Mavelikkara Primary Co-op. Agri. and R.D Bank Ltd. (2005 (4) KLT 619)

7. The learned counsel has further drawn my attention to Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R. to contend that any deduction from the D.C.R.G. could be effected only with a prior consent of the employee. According to the learned counsel, the consent the petitioner is said to have given in Ext.R1(d) is not under Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R.

8. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has urged this Court to allow the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to remove item No.4 from Ext.P2 liability certificate.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that in terms of Section 37 of the Act, salary includes the retirement benefits, which are nothing but accumulated salary. The learned counsel has submitted that time and again the Courts have held that notwithstanding Section 60 of C.P.C., in view of the non-obstante clause, Section 37 of the Act prevails sin for the very Act has received presidential assent.

10. The learned counsel has further drawn my attention to Annexure R1(d) where the petitioner is said to have consented at the bottom of the agreement that the recoveries can be effected. According to him, that undertaking is without any restrictive reference to the salary.

11. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure R1(e) and contended that the first respondent had all along been diligent. In other words, though the first respondent served a demand on the third respondent in 2009 to deduct from the petitioner’s salary, the employer remained inattentive.

12. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take shelter under technicalities. And, in terms of the guarantee he has provided, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount.

13. In the present writ petition,