SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
SHAJAN K.B – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.P.RAJEEVAN
For the Respondents: SRI.AKHIL SURESH, SRI. JUSTINE JACOB

The obligation to remit deducted loan payments lies with the employer even in financial hardship situations.

Headnote:The petitioner, an employee of the Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, contended that loan installments were deducted from his salary but not remitted to the lender. The Court found that the deductions must be transferred to the lender without delay. The primary issue involved the liability of the corporation in facilitating loan repayments. The Court emphasized the obligation of respondents to remit the deducted amounts expeditiously. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing prompt payment of the withheld amounts.

Table of Content
1. deduction of loan amounts must be remitted to lender. (Para 1 , 2)
2. financial difficulties of the employer do not absolve payment obligations. (Para 3)
3. court emphasizes the need for remittance of deducted amounts. (Para 4)
4. the court's order for payment deadlines established. (Para 5)

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who is working as a Driver in Kattappana Depot of the Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, is before this Court aggrieved by the omission on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in remitting the loan instalment amounts deducted from the salary of the petitioner and his guarantor.

2. The petitioner states that towards the repayment of the loan to the 3rd respondent, amounts were deducted from the salary of the petitioner and his guarantor. As respondents 1 and 2 failed to remit the amount to the 3rd respondent, coercive proceedings have been initiated by the 3rd respondent, as per Exts.P3 and P4.

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that KSRTC is facing financial issues and finding it difficult to make payments to its employees. The KSRTC is taking all steps to generate funds for paying dues payable by the KSRTC. The amounts recovered from the petitioner and the guarantor will be deposited with the 3rd respondent as soon as possible.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

5. It is not in dispute that from the salary of the petitioner as well as his guarantor, amounts have been deducted by respondents 1 and 2 for payment to the 3rd respondent. As the amounts are deducted, it has to be paid to the 3rd respondent without delay.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amounts deducted from the salary of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent within a period of one month and to remit the amount deducted from the salary of the guarantor, within a further period of one month.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 47 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, DATED NIL Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE LOAN REMITTANCE AS ON 13.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, IDUKKI OF THE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top