Partly allowed

Thankamani Amma v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019WP(C)/13202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of two connected writ petitions challenging salary arrears recovery and prohibitory orders issued by Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. against the petitioner following her late husband's death, where he was a surety for loans.

What did the court decide?

WP(C) No. 13202/2018 dismissed. Extend P3 and P4 in WP(C) No. 38850/2018 quashed; recovery proceedings confined only to inherited properties.

Thankamani Amma Vs the Managing Director — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 13202 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THANKAMANI AMMA, W/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, PRAKASH BHAVANAM, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690519.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RENY ANTO

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., HEAD OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR-680020.

¶11

2 MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MAVELIKKARA-690101.

¶12

3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E. LTD., ACJ MANSION, NEAR KANNAN VARKEY BRIDGE, HEAD POST OFFICE, SEAVIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688012.

¶13

4 CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

5 ASST. ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-686631.

¶15

6 CHANDRAN, KARINCHALATHOTTATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAKKAL P.O., NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695124.

¶16

7 JAYASREE R., KANNAN NIVAS, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690103.

¶17

8 SELVI, NISHA NIVAS, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690103.

¶18

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶19

¶20

R1 & R2 - SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD. R3 - R5, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN R7 - SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).38850/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶24

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶28

THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶29

WP(C).No. 38850 of 2018

PETITIONER/S:

THANKAMANI AMMA,

AGED 53 YEARS

W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, PRAKASH BHAVANAM, KADAPPA, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-690519.

¶34

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO

¶35

RESPONDENT/S:

¶36

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶37

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., HEAD OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR, PIN-680020.

¶38

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BESIDE ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.

¶39

3 MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690101.

¶40

4 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), K.S.F.E. LTD., ACJ MANSION, NEAR KANNAN VARKEY BRIDGE, HEAD POST OFFICE, SEAVIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688012.

¶41

5 NISHA MURUGAN, NISHA NIVAS, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690103.

¶42

SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶43

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶44

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶45

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.02.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).13202/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶48

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The petitioners and the respondents in the writ petition being common and the relief sought in both

¶51

writ petitions being intrinsically connected, both writ petitions are being disposed of under this common judgment.

¶52

The petitioner's late husband Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai had stood surety for loans availed by respondents 7 and 8 on the security of the Chittees they had with the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Respondents 7 and 8 having defaulted in repaying the loan amount, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. initiated action for recovery. Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai stood surety for the loans availed by respondents 7 and 8 and as security for the loans Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai, who at that point of time was working in the Local Self Government Department, had submitted his salary certificate, Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai died on 25.01.2016. As part of the recovery measures the 1^st respondent had issued a letter to respondents 4 and 5 directing to withhold the DCRG due

¶53

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶54

¶55

to the petitioner's late husband. On the basis of Ext P1 judgment rendered in WP(C)No. 19786/2016, filed by the petitioner, the DCRG amount was released. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the 5^th respondent seeking release of the pay revision arrears due to her late husband. The 5^th respondent issued Ext P4 communication stating that pay revision arrears cannot be released in view of Ext P2 notice received from the 1^st respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 13202/2018 seeking to quash Ext P4 and for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to release the pay revision arrears of Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai. Pending the earlier writ petition, the petitioner filed WP(C)No. 38850/2018, on receipt of Revenue Recovery notice seeking realisation amount of Rs. 1,41,727/-(Rs. One Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty

¶56

Seven only) due towards the amount defaulted by respondents 7 and 8. The petitioner has filed IA No. 1/2019 in WP(C) No. 38850/2018 wherein she has produced Ext P3 prohibitory order issued by the 4^th respondent

¶57

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶58

¶59

requiring the Assistant Educational Officer to restrain the petitioner from receiving salary in her capacity as the Headmistress of Mulakkal, L.P.S, Thevalakkara. Ext

¶60

P4 is the consequential order issued by the 4^th respondent.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even according to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner's husband had only given his salary certificate as security, for the loans availed by respondents 7 and 8 in WP(C) No.13202/2018. It is therefore contended that the 1^st respondent cannot seek to either withhold the arrears of salary due to the petitioner's late husband nor initiate action for recovery against the petitioner, as has been done through Exts P2, P3 and P4 in WP(C) No. 38850/2018.

¶62

The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala

¶63

State Financial Enterprises Ltd. refutes the contention of the petitioner that her late husband had submitted

¶64

only salary certificate as security. It is submitted

¶65

by the learned counsel that there is a specific undertaking by the petitioner's husband that the

¶66

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶67

¶68

defaulted amount, if any, could be realised from his retirement benefits also. It is also submitted that if

¶69

the petitioner has inherited any property from her late husband then it is within the authority of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. to realise the arrears

¶70

due from her husband by proceeding against that property. It is also contended that, since the arrears of salary, which is the subject matter of WP(C) No.13202/2018, was due to the husband of the petitioner, the Kerala State Finacnial Enterprises has got every right to recover the amounts due to it from the arrears of salary.

¶71

Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that as far as WP(C) No. 38850/2018 is concerned, the Revenue Recovery proceedings can be sustained only with respect to the properties, if any, inherited by the petitioner from her late husband Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai. The 1^st respondent and the Revenue Recovery Authorities have no legal right to seek recovery of the amounts due from the late husband of

¶72

the petitioner, by effecting recovery from the

¶73

¶74

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶75

petitioner's salary. In that view of the matter, Exts P3 and P4 in WP(C) No. 38850/2018 cannot be sustained. As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, it is well within the authority of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises to proceed for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner's husband, by seeking recovery from the arrears of salary due to him. That being the case, challenge raised in WP(C) No. 13202/2018 cannot be sustained.

¶76

In the result, WP(C) No.13202/2108 is

¶77

dismissed. It is made clear that the recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext P2 in WP(C) No.38850/2018 shall be confined to the properties, if any, inherited by the petitioner from her late husband Sri. Radhakrishna Pillai, Exts P3 and P4 in WP(C) No. 38850/2018 are quashed.

¶78

The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

SPR

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13202/2018

¶86

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶87

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 19786/2016 DATED 23.8.2016.

¶88

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶89

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.2.2018 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶90

EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO. AB-158/2016 DATED 7.3.2017.

¶91

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶92

WP(C).No. 13202 & 38850 of 2018

¶93

¶94

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38850/2018

¶95

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶96

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WP(C) NO.13202/2018 DATED 15/10/2018

¶97

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/6/2018

¶98

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVARA DATED 28.11.2018.

¶99

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 BEARING NO.D/2159/2018

¶100

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Thankamani Amma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamani Amma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadiya Vahid Vs the Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board

The Manager, Mitup School Vs the State of Kerala

Smt. R.Kalyanikuttyamma Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Vs General Secretary

Kochukunju. M Vs the District Collector

National Confederation of Officers Association Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government