Disposed

B.Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2007WP(C)/10884/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged discrepancy in salary recoveries between KSRTC and KSFE. Writ Court directed respondents to verify short credit of Rs. 14,000, explain reasons, adjust balance, reduce interest charged, and provide a detailed statement within one week.

What did the court decide?

Direction to verify short credit of Rs. 14,000, adjust balance, reduce interest, and submit detailed statement within one week.

B.Sasidharan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 20TH BHADRA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 10884 of 2007(U)

PETITIONER:

B.SASIDHARAN NAIR,MECHANIC, K.S.R.T.C ALAPPUZHA, AGED 48 YEARS, VANJIPUZHETHUVEEDU, PUNNLA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.PREETHA ANIL RAVEENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR

¶15

(R.R), KSFE LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

THE A.T.O. K.S.R.T.C., ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THIRUVALLA.

¶18

R1 BY G. P. SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH R2 AND R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DTO EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. NCL 722

¶24

EXT.P3 COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2007

¶25

THIRD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DATE OF RECOVERY.

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶29

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶30

W.P.C. NO. 10884 OF 2007

¶31

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2007

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioner's grievance is that recoveries made from his salary by

¶34

KSRTC and stated to be remitted by the KSRTC are not fully credited by the KSFE in their accounts. It is his case that there is discrepancy of Rs. 14,000/- in the recovery and payment made by KSRTC and the credit given by KSFE. Petitioner cannot be held responsible for the short fall in credit because KSRTC has certified recovery and payment of Rs. 40,500/- from petitioner's salary. Therefore petitioner is entitled

¶35

to get full amount paid by KSRTC credited and is entitled to proportionate reduction in interest from the date of recovery and payment by KSRTC. Since standing counsel for KSFE submitted that Rs. 26,500/- was received from KSRTC, there will be direction to respondents 2 and 4 to verify the reason for short credit and adjust balance Rs. 14,000/- also on the date on which KSRTC has remitted the same and reduce interest on such amount charged subsequently and give a detailed statement to the petitioner within one week from the

¶36

¶37

date of production of a copy of this judgment. Recovery from other sureties is stated to be above Rs. 30,000/- and therefore only the balance amount is recoverable from the principal debtor and guarantors, including the petitioner. Recovery can be continued after giving detailed statement to the petitioner only for the balance amount. I make it clear that if there was delay in payment by KSRTC after recovery, interest should be recovered from the KSRTC and not from the petitioner. Therefore details of recovery from monthly salary and date of receipt of payment from KSRTC should be stated by the KSFE for the petitioner to verify the correctness of demand of interest.

¶38

W.P. is disposed of as above.

¶39

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶40

B.Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sasidharan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aldose Mathew Vs Mini Antony

K.Vivek Kumar Vs Sharat Sabharval

Cochin Alloy Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

K.S.Saji Vs the District Collector.

Rejimol Thomas Vs Tahsildar, Kottayam

V.M.Sabhir, Vs Asst.Engineer, Kseb.