Allowed

K.P.Ashokan v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Kerala HC13 Nov 2023WP(C)/18932/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a KSRTC conductor, filed a writ petition seeking remittance of loan recovery amounts deducted from his and a surety's salaries to the Cooperative Society. The Court held that financial exigencies cannot justify withholding funds meant for the Society and directed remittance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to remit the entire amount recovered from the petitioner and surety's salary along with interest to the 3rd respondent Society within two months.

K.P.Ashokan Vs the Chairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18932 OF 2023

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

K.P.ASHOKAN
S/OLATEGOVINDAN,AGED49YEARS,CONDUCTORGR.II,
THALASSERYDEPOT,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT
CORPORATION,ANDRESIDINGATKUNHIPARAMATHU,
ELANGODE-P.O.,(VIA)PANOOR,KANNURDISTRICT,
PIN–670692(MOB8301827504)

¶5

BYADVS.
N.UNNIKRISHNAN
JAYACHANDRANC.

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,
TRANSPORTBHAVAN,EASTFORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN–695023,REPRESENTEDBYTHECHAIRMANAND
MANAGINGDIRECTOR

¶8

2THEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER
KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,
KANNUR,PIN-670001

¶9

3THEK.S.R.T.CEMPLOYEESCO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETYLTD.NO.C-808,NEARKSRTCBUSSTAND,
KALTEXJUNCTION,KANNUR,PIN-670002
REPRESENTEDBYTHESECRETARY

¶10

SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC

¶11

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C.) No. 18932 of 2023

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner, currently a Conductor Grade II with KSRTC, states

¶16

that he had obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000 from the KSRTC Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. (No.C-808). Towards repayment, the petitioner is stated to have given an undertaking to recover a sum of Rs.18,000/- per mensem from September 2021 onwards. The grievance of the petitioner is that out of the recovered amounts, only a meager amount has been remitted by the KSRTC with the Society, as is evident from Ext.P5 loan statement. He states that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is still retained by the 1st respondent without remitting the same with the Society. The petitioner asserts that the action on the part of the respondents in not remitting the amount to the Society after having recovered the amount from the salary is an act that cannot be countenanced. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶17

i) Call for the records leading to non-payment of recovered amount retained by the KSRTC to the 3rd respondent as evidenced in Exhibit P1 to P5;

¶18

ii) Declare that the 1st respondent Corporation is bound to remit the recovered and retained amounts from the petitioner as well as his surety towards Loan No.174 within a reasonable time to the 3rd respondent along with interest accrued thereon under

¶19

W.P.(C.) No. 18932 of 2023

¶20

¶21

intimation to the petitioner.

¶22

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate Writ or order or direction to the 1st Respondent to remit the recovered and retained amounts along with interest towards Loan No.174 to the 3rd respondent within a reasonable time;

¶23

The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated

¶24

that the KSRTC is facing a huge financial crunch, and they are facing difficulty even paying off the wages to their employees. It is further stated that the delay in remitting the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner is solely because of the financial stringency of the KSRTC, and there are no wilful laches on their part.

¶25

Sri. N.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

petitioner, would point out that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sureshkumar v. KSRTC [2001 (3) KLT 851] had occasion to hold that the failure to remit the amounts recovered from the salary to the society would amount to misappropriation. The learned counsel would also refer to Ext.P7 to P10 judgments rendered by this Court to substantiate that the action on the part of the respondents in not remitting the amount cannot be sustained under law. The learned counsel submits that direction be issued to the 1st respondent to remit the entire amount recovered from

¶27

W.P.(C.) No. 18932 of 2023

¶28

¶29

the salary of the petitioner with interest to the belated remittance.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶31

highlighted the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. In the counter affidavit, it is not disputed that the amounts which have been recovered from the salary have not been remitted to the Society concerned. There is no justification on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 for not remitting the amounts recovered from the salary of the petitioner. The financial exigencies highlighted by the respondents 1 and 2 in their counter cannot be taken to be a reason to usurp the salary of employees falling in the category of Class III and IV.

¶33

In that view of the matter, this petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remit the entire amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner and the surety towards Loan No.174, together with accrued interest in the loan account of the petitioner maintained with the 3rd respondent Society within a period of two months from today.

¶34

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶35

NS/14/11/2023

¶36

W.P.(C.) No. 18932 of 2023

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18932/2023

¶39

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit-P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 20.12.2022` `ISSUED BY THE KSRTC`
`Exhibit-P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF RECOVERY DETAILS` `DATED 08.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT` `TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. THALASSERY` `DEPOT, AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,000/- EACH WAS` `RECOVERED ON 10.04.2021, 11.04.2021, 12/2021` `AND 1/2022 FROM THE SALARY OF THE SURETY,` `SHRI DINESAN, M., CONDUCTOR GR. II, KSRTC,` `THALASSERY DEPOT`
`Exhibit-P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF RECOVERY DETAILS` `DATED 08.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT` `TRANSPORT OFFICER, THALASSERY DEPOT, AN` `AMOUNT OF RS.4,000/- EACH WAS ALSO EFFECTED` `FROM THE SALARY OF SURETY TO THE PETITIONER,` `SHRI VINODKUMAR, K. TOWARDS THE SAME LOAN` `NOS. 174 AND 1/16`
`Exhibit-P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 20.02.2023` `BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER (ADMINISTRATION AND` `FINANCE), KSRTC, KANNUR TOWARDS LOAN NO. 174`
`Exhibit-P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF LOAN STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD` `FROM 17.08.2021 TO 13.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE` `CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED` `21.03.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2023 IN` `W.P.(C) NO. 8191/2023`
`Exhibit-P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2023 IN` `W.P.(C) NO. 2925/2023`

¶40

W.P.(C.) No. 18932 of 2023

¶41

¶42

Exhibit-P9ATRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED05.04.2002IN
O.P.857/2002
Exhibit-P10ATRUECOPYOFJUDGMENTDATED14.02.2007IN
R.P.119/2007INW.A.NO.2060/2006
EXHIBIT-P11AtruecopyofJudgmentdated01.06.2023in
W.P.(C)No.17540/2023(M.K.PrasannanVs.
K.S.R.T.C.andtwoothers)
RESPONDENTEXHIBITS
EXHIBITR-2(A)ATRUECOPYOFTHEDETAILSOFPAYMENTOFDUES
MADETOKSRTCANDOTHERSOCIETIESASONJUNE,
2023
EXHIBITR-2(B)ATRUECOPYOFTHEFINANCIALYEAR-WISE
CONSOLIDATIONOFTHEAMOUNTSDUETOKSRTC
SOCIETIES
EXHIBITR-2(C)ATRUECOPYOFTHEFINANCIALYEAR-WISE
CONSOLIDATIONOFTHEAMOUNTSDUETOTHE
SOCIETIESOTHERTHANKSRTCSOCIETIES
EXHIBITR-2(D)ATRUECOPYOFTHEINTERIMORDEROFTHIS
HON'BLECOURTINCON.CASE(C)NO.1735/2023
DATED22/08/2023

K.P.Ashokan v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Ashokan v. the Chairman and 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

V.Ashokan Vs High Court of Kerala

Seenamol C.K. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sajitha.P.S Vs the Disciplinary Authority (Hon’Ble District Judge)

Valsala Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

Sindhu P.V. Vs Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Leela Velayudhan Vs K.S.R.T.C