Kerala High Court
Dr. N.B. Suresh Kumar vs Kerala State Financial Corporation ... on 3 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:48218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20156 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DR. N.B. SURESH KUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O K. BHASKARAKURUP,
RESIDING AT TC 13/1060/21,
THAPASYA, KALLOOR GARDENS,
KANNANMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
BY ADV SHRI.ANANDU RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (KSFE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
CHADAYAMANGALAM BRANCH, POOJA BUILDING,
'C' BUS STAND, SH 1, OPP. K.S.R.T.C.,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691534
2 SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
KOLLAM TALUK OFFICE, TALUK KACHERY,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
3 STATE RESOURCE CENTRE (SRC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, NANDAVANAM,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
4 T.R. SHIBU
SECTION FOREST OFFICER,
2025:KER:48218
W.P.(C) No.20156/2025
:2:
FOREST WORKING PLAN OFFICE, PUNALUR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691305
5 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
PUNALUR (DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER),
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, PANAMKUTTYMALA,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691305
6 GEETHAKUMARI K.P
MANAGER, VELINALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
KARINAGANNOOR - MOOTHALA ROAD, VELINALLOOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691516
7 VELINALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARINAGANNOOR - MOOTHALA ROAD,
VELINALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691516
8 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
BY ADV SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48218
W.P.(C) No.20156/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.20156 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the recovery proceedings targetted against the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to him, in violation of specific statutory provisions and binding precedents.
2. The petitioner is working as Programme Co- ordinator of the State Resource Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He stood as one of the guarantors for the Chitty No.35/16-18 prized by Mr. Mohanachandran Nair, the principal borrower, in the year 2017. The 4th and 6th respondents were the other guarantors to the prized Chitty. The petitioner states that he was forced to give an agreement 2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :4: for recovery from salary and terminal benefits.
3. The principal borrower defaulted in repayment of the prized Chitty. The principal borrower passed away on 08.11.2019. The legal heirs did not come forward to clear the dues. The KSFE and the Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) initiated recovery from salary of all the sureties. The petitioner states that recovery is being effected from his salary since March, 2022. More than ₹4 lakhs has been recovered from the petitioner's salary.
4. In the year 2023, recovery from the salary of other sureties was stopped. But, recovery from the petitioner's salary continued. The petitioner is due to retire on 31.05.2025. The 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR) has issued Ext.P5 prohibitory order on 07.01.2025 restraining the petitioner's employer from paying DCRG to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P6 letter directing recovery of the entire due amount from the DCRG of the petitioner.
2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :5:
5. The petitioner states that attachment or recovery from DCRG is impermissible in view of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Even if a person agrees to recover amount from his Gratuity, such an agreement is unenforceable. This Court has held so in a number of binding precedents.
6. The 1st respondent-KSFE resisted the writ petition. The petitioner voluntarily stood as a Guarantor to the Chitty transaction in question. There was no compulsion or coercion on the petitioner to undertake recovery of dues from his DCRG. The petitioner executed Ext.P5 undertaking voluntarily agreeing to recover dues from the entire amount of DCRG.
7. The only condition in Sections 13 and 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is that Gratuity shall not be liable to attachment in execution of any Decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. In this case, it is not a Decree of any court as mentioned in Section 13 or 14. The 2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :6: enforcement is only of an unconditional undertaking given by the petitioner.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
9. The question whether Kerala State Road Transport Corporation can recover dues from DCRG amount of an employee came up for consideration before this Court in Unnikrishnan Nair K.B. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (4) KLT 967]. In the said judgment, this Court held as follows:
14. It is true that the petitioner had refuted execution of the agreement contending that he had consented only for recovery from salary. It is true that the petitioner had conceded about the undertaking given agreeing for recovery from pension and other benefits. But it is pertinent to note that the entire claim is based on the dictum contained in Kunju Mohammed's case, in which it is held that notwithstanding any consent/agreement the amount of gratuity is not attachable. Being a legal question agitated based on a settled precedent, this Court do not find any reason to reject the writ petition based on a contention that there was suppression of any factual aspects.
2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :7:
15. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is allowed to the extent of declaring that the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner from the 1st respondent Corporation cannot be attached or withheld to satisfy arrears if any due to the 2nd respondent under the loan account. Consequently, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the amount of DCRG due to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that the above judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents 2 & 3 proceeding against the petitioner to recover the arrears from any of his personal assets or from any other amount due to him towards terminal benefits from the 1st respondent Corporation.
10. The issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court also. The Division Bench was considering the case of a KSRTC employee in W.A. No.98/2015. The Division Bench held that the primacy of the provisions of the Gratuity Act over other enactments, instruments or contracts being no longer res integra, the findings in the impugned judgment are only to be affirmed. The Division Bench directed that the DCRG due to the writ petitioner therein shall be paid within one month. The Division Bench held that whether exempted or not, Gratuity of 2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :8: an employee is not liable to be attached.
11. In W.A. No.516/2012, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
4. We have been shown both the letters across the Bar. We see that the first letter referred to by the learned Standing Counsel is with respect to recovery from pensionary benefits which however cannot go by the consent of the employee, insofar as DCRG is concerned. Especially when there is a specific bar under Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 even against an establishment exempted under Section 5 of the Act by way of a notification. With respect to the last letter we see that the prayer was only that the payment may be made after settlement of RR dues. This does not enable the KSRTC to be absolved of the interest liability especially since as a responsible employer they should have noticed the statutory prohibition and paid up the DCRG at the appropriate time.
12. The said judgment in W.A. No.516/2012 was taken before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15048/2020. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. In view of the binding precedents of this Court upheld by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to relief.
2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 :9:
13. Exts.P5 and P6 are quashed. The respondents are directed to drop recovery proceedings against the DCRG of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is directed to release the DCRG payable to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/01.07.2025 2025:KER:48218 W.P.(C) No.20156/2025 : 10 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20156/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL .
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION
FORM DATED 20.02.2017, INCLUDING
EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE AND AGREEMENT FOR RECOVERY FROM SALARY, SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.
283/2022 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 20.12.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE DATED 27.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRC KERALA, TO THIS PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF REVENUE
RECOVERIES CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER DATED FROM 09.03.2022 TO 07.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SRC, KERALA, TO THIS PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSCRIPTION Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
SDT/KLM/ISI/2018-1 I DATED 07.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT