Remanded

K.K.Rahulan v. K.S.R.T.C.

Kerala HC1 Nov 2013WP(C)/27149/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition concerning a loan recovered from a KSRTC conductor's salary, where the Corporation failed to remit the amount promptly. The court directed the Corporation to pay accrued interest to the Co-operative Society and dismissed the employee's liability.

What did the court decide?

The 1st Respondent Corporation directed to remit the sum of ₹ 10,330/- as additional interest to the 2nd Respondent within three months.

K.K.Rahulan Vs K.S.R.T.C. — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 27149 of 2004 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.K. RAHULAN,(CONDUCTOR KSRTC VAIKOM) S/O. K.M. KUNJAN,KILIKKOOTHCHIRAYIL, CHERPU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C. R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC KSTW CO.OP SOCIETY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C)NO.27149/2004

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DATED 17/08/2004

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VAIKOM

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEX A COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 1/10/2004

¶22

EXT.R2(A) COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF LOAN NO.BAL-37000 OF SHRI.K.K.RAHULAN

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 27149 of 2004

¶28

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner had availed a loan of 40,000/- from₹ the 2^nd respondent Society. According to the petitioner, the 1^st respondent deducted the amount from his salary. His further case is that an amount of 55,470/- has already₹ been deducted from the salary by the 1^st respondent. It is alleged that the amount deducted from the salary is inclusive of the interest on the loan amount. It is further alleged that the 1^st respondent Corporation has not remitted the amount so deducted from the salary of the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent Society. According to the petitioner, he is not responsible for the additional interest to be paid to the 2^nd respondent Society as a result of the omission on the part of the 1^st respondent to remit the same to the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no liability on his part to remit the amount as demanded in Ext.P1. Thus, he has come up

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 27149 of 2004

¶32

..2..

¶33

before this Court.

¶34

Along with the statement filed by the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent has produced Annexure A, which shows the details of recovery. Apparently, a sum of ₹ 57,500/- is deducted from the salary of the petitioner. In

¶35

Annexure A, details of certain remittances were also shown.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner availed a loan of 40,000/- on 15.02.1999 with interest @ 19%, as₹ existing then, to be paid in 43 monthly instalments @ ₹ 1,290/- per month ending on 15.09.2002. It was further stated that as the recovery was regular and prompt on the part of the petitioner's side, the recovery was completed in September 2002. Further, it was alleged that the 1^st respondent Corporation retained the recovered amounts contrary to the mandate of Section 37 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, which requires that the amounts so recovered are to be paid within seven days from the date of such recovery. In support of the

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 27149 of 2004

¶38

..3..

¶39

contention, the 2^nd respondent has produced Ext.R2(a) also.

¶40

From the materials now placed on record, it can be seen that due to the lapse on the part of the 1^st respondent in remitting the recovered amounts, an additional payment of 10,330/- towards interest is due to₹ the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, the 1^st respondent is duty bound to remit the aforesaid sum of 10,330/- (Rupees ten₹ thousand three hundred and thirty only). The 1^st respondent Corporation shall clear off the liability due to the 2^nd respondent within a period of three months from today.

¶41

The writ petition is closed. If the petitioner has any grievance that any excess amount has been paid, he shall make a representation to the 1^st respondent Corporation, which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶44

bka/-

K.K.Rahulan v. K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Rahulan v. K.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

P.E.Varghese Vs Sreesankaracharya University

V.M.Gangadharan Vs the State of Kerala

B.Rajasekharan Pillai Vs Managing Director,K.S.B.

M Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

Lourd Kunjumon Vs Union of India