salary benefits is unfair, as she should not be held responsible for a debt of her husband incurred as a guarantor. Moreover, the 4*^ respondent has not made adequate efforts to collect the loan from the 5^^ respondent, even though he owns a property. He would further submit that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 60 of C.P.C, 1908. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to release the salary benefits of the petitioner’s husband to the petitioner by setting aside the letter dated 01.01.2022 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent. 6. Per contra Sri K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner’s husband was initially hired as a contract driver in 2006 and, after a brief removal, was reinstated and later regularized as a Driver-2 in 2010. Following his death in 2019, the petitioner received most of the settlement benefits except for his salary due to orders passed by District Judge, Anantapur, in E.P. No. 1278/2017 in A.A. No. 846/2016 that required a portion of his salary to be withheld to pay off a debt. He would further submit that the petitioner was informed about this court attachment and was advised to clear the legal issues to receive the settlement of salary bill. 7. On perusal of the material available on record, this Court observed that at the time of passing of the decree in E.P. No. 1278/2017 in A.A. No. 846/2016, which resulted in attachment of salary benefits of the petitioner’s husband, he had passed away. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, the
