JAYAKUMAR Vs. PRINCIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE
LAWS(KER)-1974-9-8
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on September 24,1974

JAYAKUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioners are two Government servants, who stood surety for a prized subscriber in a chitty conducted by the Kerala State ; Financial Enterprises Ltd., for due payment of the future subscriptions payable to the foreman. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises is a fully Government owned Company. The petitioners had executed an agreement to the effect that in case of default by the subscriber, the defaulted amount may be recovered by deduction from their salaries. The subscriber committed default in payment of future subscriptions. Pursuant to the above agreement, the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. requested the first respondent, who is the officer to disburse the salary to the petitioners, to deduct from their salaries the defaulted subscriptions. This original petition has been filed to quash the memo issued by the first respondent informing the petitioners that such a deduction would be made.
(2.) The only ground urged by the petitioners' counsel is that the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, which is a legal entity different from the State of Kerala, and that therefore, the Government is not entitled to set off a debt due to that Company from the salaries payable to them in the absence of any statutory provisions to that effect. The character of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises is peculiar. Though legally, it is a separate entity, the company is fully owned by the Government, and what is due to the company is really due to the Government, and prima facie it appears to me that, if a Government servant has given an undertaking that the debt due to such a company may be deducted from bis salary, the Government would be entitled to make a deduction accordingly. At any rate, I do not find any justification to invoke Art.226 of the Constitution in support of the contention put forward by the petitioners, since the impugned ion is one done pursuant to their express agreement.
(3.) The petitioners' contention that they are not aware whether the amount sought to be deducted from their salaries is really due or not, cannot be countenanced. It is for them to enquire and find it out. If they have a case that the amount deducted from their salary is not due or excessive, perhaps the court may examine that matter. There is no such case here. This original petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.