Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Anitha Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 September, 2024
APHC010021122022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1609/2022
Between:
M Anitha Lakshmi ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N PREMRAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS
2. K VISWANATHAM
3. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
following relief:-
"...pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of
the 3rd respondent in issuing letter No.P1/756(13)/2019 K.D.G dt. 1-1-
2022 is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in
violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct
the respondents 2 and 3 to release the salary benefits to the petitioner
which she is entitled from the deceased husband of the petitioner i.e.
M.Kanteswara, E.No.577145, Driver of Kalayanadurgam Depot without
withholding any part of the salary benefits in the interest of justice and to
pass...."
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her husband was working as a
driver in the 1st respondent department and died in service on 10.09.2019.
She was dependent on her husband's salary. After his death, she became
entitled to salary benefits and submitted an application for the same.
Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued letter No. P1/756(13)/2019 K.D.G
dated 01-01-2022, stating that the petitioner must settle the loan amount
obtained by the 5th respondent, due to execution proceedings pending before
the District Court, Anantapur, in E.P. No. 1278/2017 in A.A. No. 846/2016, for
a sum of Rs. 2,00,723/-. The petitioner's husband had acted as surety for the
4th respondent company regarding this loan. The 4th respondent filed an
arbitration application before the Sole Arbitrator, Anantapur, resulting in an
award on 05.10.2016. Based on this, the 4th respondent is recovering the loan
amount from the salary of the petitioner's husband by filing the execution
petition. The 5th respondent owns property in Sy. No. 75-2, an area of Ac.
4.50 cents located at Varli Village, Kalaynadurgam Mandal, Anantapur District.
However, the 4th respondent is not taking any steps to recover the loan
amount from the 5th respondent and is insisting that the 1st respondent
department recover the loan amount from the salary benefits of the petitioner's
deceased husband. The action of the 3rd respondent in issuing letter No.
P1/756(13)/2019 K.D.G dated 01.01.2022 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the
present writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents while denying the
allegations made in the petition, contended that the petitioner's husband was
appointed as a contract driver on 17.05.2006 and removed from service on
07.12.2006. He was reinstated as a contract driver following a review petition
considered by the Regional Manager, Anantapuram, which was reported on
31.08.2008. His services were regularized in the post of Driver-2 with effect
from 01.10.2010. The petitioner's husband passed away on 10.09.2019 due to
a heart stroke. In this connection, all settlement benefits except for the salary
bill were arranged for the petitioner. The salary bill was not arranged due to
orders issued by the District Judge, Anantapuram, for the attachment of salary
to the extent of Rs. 2,00,723/- in connection with the decree as per Section 60
C.P.C. It was ordered that this sum be withheld by deducting the first Rs.
1,000/- from the judgment debtor's salary and one-third of the remaining
salary for a period of 24 months or until the realization of the warrant amount,
whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the office has issued letters to the petitioner
to clear the above court attachment to facilitate the settlement of the salary bill
payment.
4. Heard Sri N.Prem Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the
contents made in the petition, would submit that, the petitioner is entitled to
her deceased husband's salary benefits because she dependent on his
income. The 3rd respondent is recovering loan from petitioner's husband
salary benefits is unfair, as she should not be held responsible for a debt of
her husband incurred as a guarantor. Moreover, the 4th respondent has not
made adequate efforts to collect the loan from the 5th respondent, even
though he owns a property. He would further submit that the respondents
have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 60 of C.P.C,
1908. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to
issue a direction to the respondents to release the salary benefits of the
petitioner's husband to the petitioner by setting aside the letter dated
01.01.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent.
6. Per contra, Sri K.Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, would
submit that the petitioner's husband was initially hired as a contract driver in
2006 and, after a brief removal, was reinstated and later regularized as a
Driver-2 in 2010. Following his death in 2019, the petitioner received most of
the settlement benefits except for his salary due to orders passed by District
Judge, Anantapur, in E.P. No. 1278/2017 in A.A. No. 846/2016 that required a
portion of his salary to be withheld to pay off a debt. He would further submit
that the petitioner was informed about this court attachment and was advised
to clear the legal issues to receive the settlement of salary bill.
7. On perusal of the material available on record, this Court observed that
at the time of passing of the decree in E.P. No. 1278/2017 in A.A. No.
846/2016, which resulted in attachment of salary benefits of the petitioner's
husband, he had passed away. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the
respondents are not supposed to attach the salary benefits to which the
petitioner is entitled for. The action of the respondents in attaching the salary
benefits to the debt payable by the 5th respondent for the loan he took, for
which the petitioner's husband stood as surety, is not just and proper.
8. Considering the submissions of both the counsel and upon perusal of
the entire material on record, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to release all the salary benefits of the petitioner's husband to the
petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand
closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date: 20.09.2024
MH
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 1609/2022
Date : 20.09.2024
MH
