IMPORTANT POINT
Gratuity cannot be attached for recovery of debts as per statutory provisions, emphasizing the unenforceability of agreements contrary to the Payment of Gratuity Act.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the recovery proceedings targetted against the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to him, in violation of specific statutory provisions and binding precedents.

2. The petitioner is working as Programme Co-ordinator of the State Resource Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He stood as one of the guarantors for the Chitty No.35/16-18 prized by Mr. Mohanachandran Nair, the principal borrower, in the year 2017. The 4^th and 6^th respondents were the other guarantors to the prized Chitty. The petitioner states that he was forced to give an agreement for recovery from salary and terminal benefits.

3. The principal borrower defaulted in repayment of the prized Chitty. The principal borrower passed away on 08.11.2019. The legal heirs did not come forward to clear the dues. The KSFE and the Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) initiated recovery from salary of all the sureties. The petitioner states that recovery is being effected from his salary since March, 2022. More than ₹4 lakhs has been recovered from the petitioner's salary.

4. In the year 2023, recovery from the salary of other sureties was stopped. But, recovery from the petitioner's salary continued. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.05.2025. The 2^nd respondent-Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) has issued Ext.P5 prohibitory order on 07.01.2025 restraining the petitioner's employer from paying DCRG to the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P6 letter directing recovery of the entire due amount from the DCRG of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner states that attachment or recovery from DCRG is impermissible in view of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act . Even if a person agrees to recover amount from his Gratuity, such an agreement is unenforceable. This Court has held so in a number of binding precedents.

6. The 1^st respondent-KSFE resisted the writ petition. The petitioner voluntarily stood as a Guarantor to the Chitty transaction in question. There was no compulsion or coercion on the petitioner to undertake recovery of dues from his DCRG. The petitioner executed Ext.P5 undertaking voluntarily agreeing to recover dues from the entire amount of DCRG.

7. The only condition in Sections 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is that Gratuity shall not be liable to attachment in execution of any Decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. In this case, it is not a Decree of any court as mentioned in Section 13 or 14. The enforcement is only of an unconditional undertaking given by the petitioner.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

9. The question whether Kerala State Road Transport Corporation can recover dues from DCRG amount of an employee came up for consideration before this Court in Unnikrishnan Nair K.B. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [ 2014 (4) KLT 967 ]. In the said judgment, this Court held as follows:

14. It is true that the petitioner had refuted execution of the agreement contending that he had consented only for recovery from salary. It is true that the petitioner had conceded about the undertaking given agreeing for recovery from pension and other benefits. But it is pertinent to note that the entire claim is based on the dictum contained in Kunju Mohammed's case, in which it is held that notwithstanding any consent/agreement the amount of gratuity is not attachable. Being a legal question agitated based on a settled precedent, this Court do not find any reason to reject the writ petition based on a contention that there was suppression of any factual aspects.

15. Under the above menti