JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who were working in the services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), allege that even though amounts were withheld from their salary by the KSRTC to be paid to the 2nd respondent – Co-operative Society, from which they had availed loans, same has not been remitted to the said Society. They say that they have already obtained information under the Right to Information Act as regards the deductions made from their salary, which is evident from Exts.P2,P3 and P5; and it is evident that substantial portions thereof have not been paid to the Society. They say that this has now burdened them unnecessarily in the loan account and they have been now threatened with coercive action even with respect to the added interest. They thus pray that the KSRTC be directed to credit the amounts recovered from them to the 2nd respondent – Society without any further delay.

2. The afore submissions of the petitioners, as made by their learned counsel – Smt.Deepa R. Menon, were controverted by Smt.Lakshmi Sreedhar – learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, saying that this Court has already, in the case of other retired employees, allowed the KSRTC to reconcile the account and verify whether any amounts are still due to the Society. She submitted that if the same modus is allowed to be adopted by the KSRTC in this case also, they will be able to allay the apprehension of the petitioners; however, adding that all recovered amounts, to her information, have been remitted to the Society in time.

3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that the disputation between the parties is as to whether the amounts withheld from the salaries of the petitioners have been remitted to the 2nd respondent – Society. Though they say that the amounts recovered from them are evident from Exts.P2, P3 and P5, the question whether they have been remitted to the Society is something which is in the factual realm and which will have to be decided by the competent Authority of the KSRTC.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Managing Director of the KSRTC to hear the petitioners and advert to their contentions hinged on Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and then give them a statement of account as to when the amounts recovered from their salaries have been remitted to the 2nd respondent – Society.

On such accounts being submitted and if the petitioners have any objection against the same, they will be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Managing Director, who will, thereupon, verify whether there has been any delay in payment of the amounts into the Society and if so, will consider the grant of necessary interest thereon, so as to offset the additional burden, if any, caused on the petitioners on account of the delay in disbursement.

The afore exercise shall be done by the Managing Director of the KSRTC within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, all further recovery to be made from the petitioners will be credited to the account of the 2nd respondent – Society without any delay, but not later than one week from such event.

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/30.8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25321/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI RESPONSE RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT, PIO NO 0259/2022 DATED

11.04.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY DULY SEALED AND SIGNED RTI RESPONSE RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT, GL2/798/22/MALA DATED 26.03.2022.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI RESPONSE RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO T1-500/2022/PLKD DATED

31.03.2022.