Allowed

G.Ramachandran Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013WP(C)/34926/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging salary recovery order from a police officer declared devoid of merit as his take-home pay after deductions remains positive. Petitioner granted facility to discharge liability via 10-month instalments to stay recovery action pending default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to discharge liability in 10 equal monthly instalments. Upon compliance, Ext.P3 stays; default attracts resumption of recovery action.

G.Ramachandran Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 34926 of 2008 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, T.C.13/1786, RAKENDU, AVITTOM ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SRI.M.R.RAJESH.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. M.S. JAYANTHI, W/O.VISWANATHA PILLAI, PALLATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINGOM, VIA. PAYYANNUR, CHOONDA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, PLOT NO.43A., COCHIN CSEZ, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 30.

¶13

4. R. VISWANATHA PILLAI I.P.S., PALLATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PULINGOM, VIA. PAYYANNUR, CHOONDA POST, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.LONACHAN, SC, KSFE LTD. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 34926 of 2008 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/09/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34926 OF 2008

¶26

===================

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2013

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 prohibitory order. Petitioner is an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The 3^rd respondent had subscribed a kuri with the 2^nd respondent. The kuri was auctioned and the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, the husband of the 3^rd respondent were the sureties. Default was committed by the 3^rd respondent and thereupon recovery proceedings were initiated. It was in pursuance to the above that Ext.P3 prohibitory order was issued ordering recovery from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of `2,000/- per month. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed.

¶30

The pleadings in the writ petition are to the effect that his basic salary is 9,390/- and his total pay including allowances would be 15,000/- per month and that after effecting deductions towards housing loan, PF loan, subscription to SLI and LIC, his take home pay is only `1,300/-. It is stated that since the situation is as above, if recovery is effected in pursuance to Ext.P3, petitioner will be driven to poverty and it is with this allegation,

¶31

WPC.No.34926/08

¶32

:2 :

¶33

the writ petition is filed.

¶34

An affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent which shows that the gross salary of the petitioner is 16,680/-. It is also stated that towards GPF and housing loan, 4,000/- each are deducted. Further, towards GPF loan, 4,200/- is deducted. In addition, towards the SLI, LIC and a personal loan to the Corporation Bank, 230/-, 168/- and 685/- respectively are recovered. Thus, out of the gross salary of 16,680/-, 13,283/- is recovered and the take home pay of the petitioner is 3,397/-. Further, it is also stated that the averment of the petitioner that he is only an earning member in his family is incorrect and that his wife Smt.Radhika is working as a Nurse in Ophthalmology Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶35

The writ petition is filed on the basis that his only take home pay is 1,300/- and that therefore if Ext.P3 is implemented, petitioner will not be left with any amount. From the statement referred to above, it is evident that even after making the deductions, his take home pay is 3,397/-. Therefore, if 2,000/as ordered in Ext.P3 is recovered, petitioner is still left with 1,397/-. That apart, I am also persuaded to think that a defaulter cannot contend that he is entitled to continue payments towards

¶36

:3 :

¶37

WPC.No.34926/08

¶38

GPF and other voluntary subscriptions and therefore is in penury and should be exonerated from recovery of the dues that he owe to institutions such as the respondent company. That apart, from the statement filed on behalf of the company, it appears that recovery against the 4^th respondent, the other surety, is not possible for the reason that he has since been dismissed from service. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an instalment facility to discharge the liability. Taking note of the above submission, petitioner is permitted to discharge the liability in 10 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 25/4/13 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 25^th of every succeeding month. Subject to such payment, Ext.P3 shall stand stayed and in case of default, respondents will be free to proceed with the recovery action.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

PA to Judge

G.Ramachandran Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramachandran Nair v. the Superintendent of Police

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

Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd. Vs Chennai Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

Amma Center for Diagnosis and Preventive Medicine (P0 Ltd. Vs Kims Hospital and Surgical Centre

R.Padmini Vs State of Kerala and Others

Lizy Sajeev Vs Intelligence Inspector

Stephen Bernard Vs the Commissioner

Meena Asokan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer