An employee cannot be held liable for additional charges due to an employer's delay in remitting loan repayments if the loan amount has been fully deducted from the salary.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the 1st respondent society based on an agreement as provided under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 . Petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. As per the agreement, Rs.66,640/- was deducted from the salary of the petitioner from December, 2000 to April, 2004. The entire amount was paid by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent.

2. Petitioner retired from service. However, an amount of Rs.12,950/- is deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner saying that this amount is due from the petitioner to the 1st respondent society towards the loan account. According to the petitioner, he is not in any manner liable or responsible, since appropriate deductions were made by the KSRTC from the petitioner by deducting from monthly salary. Therefore, petitioner seeks appropriate direction for the release of the entire amount of gratuity without detaining any amount as per the request made by the 1st respondent society.

3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement before this Court stating that an amount of Rs.12,950/- was claimed alleging that the amount payable on account of the delay occurred on the part of KSRTC in forwarding installment amounts recovered from the salary in time. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent society shows that the party has already secured a refund of Rs.1,418/- and also an amount of Rs.1,000/- personally due from him. Therefore, the liability of the Corporation is only to the extent of Rs.10,532/-

as noted in the counter affidavit.

4. A counter affidavit is also filed by the 1st respondent, explaining the circumstances as are narrated in the statement.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent society and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

6. The issue centres around the lethargy on the part of the KSRTC to deposit the amounts of the 1st respondent society after having the installments received in accordance with the agreement, from the salary of the petitioner. Even though the amount was paid, the same was belated, consequent to which, other charges were claimed by the 1st respondent society against the petitioner, which contributed to the present circumstances.

7. When this writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court on 20.03.2009, an interim order was passed by this Court, directing the KSRTC to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.13,000/-, subject to further orders. In my considered opinion, the interim order passed by this Court on that date is justified for the reasons enumerated above. It was due to the default on the part of the KSRTC alone, petitioner had to suffer on account of the claims raised by the 1st respondent society. It was thereupon that the interim order was passed. I do not find any reason to further modify the said interim order. The same is made absolute. However, I make it clear that, if the KSRTC has already made the payment, there is no other liability for the KSRTC, However, the interim order is not complied with by the KSRTC, same shall be complied with within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.