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

2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24365

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
V.SANKARAN KUTTY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/9275/2008



Advocates:
MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA

Written consent is essential for the recovery of debts from a Government employee's D.C.R.G.

Headnote:

Consent - Recovery of Gratuity - K.S.R, Part III, Rule 3 - Recovery of amounts from D.C.R.G requires written consent from the employee.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition after the D.C.R.G amount was withheld despite retirement benefits being sanctioned, arguing there was no written consent for recovery of loans from this amount.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that without the petitioner's written consent specifically for D.C.R.G recovery, no such recovery could be lawfully made. The prior recovery was only authorized from salary.

Issues: Whether the absence of written consent allows recovery from D.C.R.G.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery from D.C.R.G requires explicit written consent, which was not provided in this case.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed and the D.C.R.G is to be released immediately.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner retired from service as Assistant Teacher from the A.U.P.School, Kulappully. Gong by Ext.P1, retirement benefits have been sanctioned to him. The D.C.R.G amount has not been disbursed so far which has prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition. After the retirement of the petitioner, he was issued with Exts.P2 and P3 by the Headmaster of the School and the Assistant Educational Officer with regard to some personal loans availed by him. By Ext.P4, he replied that he has not executed any consent to recover any loan amount from the D.C.R.G payable to him.

2. The petitioner has got a case that he had taken personal loans from different banks by offering securities but, he has not given any written consent for recovering any of those amounts from the D.C.R.G to any of those creditors. He is relying upon the decision of this Court inSurendran v.Mavelikara Primary Co-op. Agrl.& R.D.Bank Ltd. [2005 (4) KLT 619], a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, wherein the matter was disposed of taking a view that unless there is written consent by a Government employee for effecting recovery from D.C.R.G., no such recovery can be effected.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is pointed out that the petitioner's pensionary benefits have been duly sanctioned and the Assistant Educational Officer is the pension sanctioning authority. At the time of retirement of the petitioner, there were outstanding balance in the loans availed of by the petitioner from three banks. Those bank loans were availed on the basis of the salary certificate and the undertaking given to the Headmaster of the school to recover the loan amount from his salary if he makes any default in payment. All those three banks have obtained decree, to attach his salary and assets. It is submitted that the Headmaster has recovered Rs.30,600/- at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per month till his retirement. It is pointed out that the outstanding amount in the loan account is Rs.3,74,103/-. Going by Ext.P1, the amount of D.C.R.G is Rs.2,14,151/-.

4. The question is whether in the absence of a consent in writing to recover the amount from the D.C.R.G, as provided in Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R , the respondents can withheld the amount. Ruling 1 of Part III K.S.R states that “amounts due from a Government employee or pensioner to Government Companies, Local Bodies, Co-operative Societies, etc., thought not treated as Government dues may be recovered from the death-cum- retirement gratuity payable to him with his consent in writing.” Therefore, the recovery can be made only if there is a written consent from the employee/pensioner. Herein, going by the counter affidavit, the consent in writing was for recovery of the amount from the salary only and not from the D.C.R.G. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.30,600/- was recovered prior to his retirement. Merely because there are decrees in favour of the banks, that will not enable the respondents to recover the amount from the D.C.R.G. The crucial issue is only whether Ruling No.1 of Part III K.S.R enables the respondents to recover the amount from the D.C.R.G. The issue therefore, can be safely be concluded that unless there is written consent from a Government employee no recovery can be effected from D.C.R.G which is payable to the employee. Beyond that, the pension sanctioning authority need not go further. It is not specified in Ruling 1 of Part III K.S.R that if there is a decree, the amounts can be withheld from the D.C.R.G. In Surendran's case [ 2005 (4) KLT 619 ], it was held by the Division Bench that the term “salary” used in the relevant provision refers to periodical and monthly recurring payment to be made to the employee while in service, it will not be permissible for the court to insert, interpolate or substitute any word or expression such as “DCRG” into the provisions, to expand the meaning of the term “salary”. While interpreting the term “salary” used in S.37 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