Ram Mehar vs Union Of India Through

Nita Chowdhury , J

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect the whole action of the respondent No.1 to 3 stating the recovery from the pay of the applicants without passing any order and without given any opportunity to the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to refund entire recovered amount to the applicants with interest.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the respondent No.1 to 3 has no authority to recovered any amount from the pay of the applicants on the direction of respondent No.4, as the respondent No.4 has their own legal remedies if the applicants has committed any wrong with the respondent No.4.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."

The grievance of the applicants in this case is against the respondent nos.2 and 3, who on the direction of respondent no.4, which is not a Govt. Society but a private society of Railway Employees, have no authority to start recovery from the pay of the applicants without their consent and the instant OA has been preferred against the action of recovery from their pay without passing any order and without given any show cause notice by the respondent nos.2 and 3.

Brief facts of the case that in the Railway Department, there is a cooperative Society of the Railway Employees, i.e., respondent no.4, which is a welfare society of the Railway employees and the said society has no concern with the Government and Govt. fund.

1 Respondent no.4 gave some loan amount of Rs.174985/- to one Shri Raj Kumar s/o Sh. Sita Ram, Pointsman. Applicant nos.3 and 4 given the surety in respect of said Shri Raj Kumar. The said Shri Raj Kumar died in harness. Respondent no.4 requested the respondent no.2 and 3 to recover the aforesaid loan amount from the settlement dues of late Shri Raj Kumar but the respondent no.2 and 3 instead of recovering the said amount from the retirement/settlement dues of late Shri Raj Kumar released all the amount to the legal heirs of Sh. Raj Kumar and now decided the recovery of loan amount with interest from the pay of applicant no.3 and 4, i.e., Rs.5000/- per month even without passing any order and without issuing any show cause notice.

4.2 One another employee, namely, Sh. Sat Narain S/o Sh. Gaya Deen who was working as ASM also died in harness and a loan of Rs.141386/- was taken by him from the said Society in which applicant no.1 and 2 given their surety. In that case, respondent no.4 also requested the respondent nos.2 and 3 to recover the loan amount with interest from the retirement/settlement dues of late Shri Sat Narain but respondent nos.2 and 3 released all the payment of retirement benefits to the legal heirs of late Shri Sat Narain without recover of the loan.

4.3 The applicants further stated that son of late Shri Sat Narain has been given compassionate appointment and he is working in the Railway Department but respondent nos.2 and 3 instead of demanding the loan amount from the son of late Shri Sat Narain started the recovery of Rs.5000/- from the pay of the July-August 2014, even without passing any order and without any show cause notice.

4.4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of recovery initiated by the respondent nos.2 and 3, the applicants have filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, they have filed their reply in which they stated that so far as Shri Satya Narayan who had taken loan of Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-from Northern Railway Employees C.T.C. Society Ltd, Ajmeri Gate Branch, Delhi as on 22.6.2012 and 12.6.2013 in relation to which applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 have given their sureties for granting the above loan. However, during repayment of loan the said borrower has expired on 23.12.2013 ad outstanding amount of Rs.92514/- had already been recovered from the regular salary of sureties by the concerned society directly. A notice addressed to settlement/bill section from society for recovery amounting to Rs.92514/- as outstanding dues has been issued by the said Society requesting for recovery of the said outstanding amount of the said loan from the gratuity and other dues from the said Shri Sat Narain and the said society has also issued notice to the applicant no.3 and no.4 in relation of loan taken by Shri Raj Kumar to which they were sureties, who expired during repayment of the loan amount of Rs.1,74,985/- from them if lonee failed to deposit the said amount within 15 days, the same will be recovered from them as per agreement executed by them with the Society. The respondent no.2 and 3 further submitted that they have not received the said notice in their office resulting all the payment of settlement dues of deceased Shri Sat Narain were released, hence, outstanding loan amount of Rs.92514 were directly recovered from the regular salaries of both the guarantors (sureties) as per loan term and agreement forms duly signed by the said applicants.

They further stated that as far as in the matter of late Shri Raj Kumar 2nd deceased, it has been advised by the Manager/CTC Society vide their letter dated 9.1.2015, no such amount of outstanding loan of the said deceased employee have been recovered from their salaries as claimed by them whereas an outstanding amount of Rs.98000/- has been deposited by the wards of the said deceased employee with their Society.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case, we observe that the applicants in this case are sureties to the loans taken by the members of the Northern Zone Railway Employee's C.T.C. Society Ltd. namely, Shri Raj Kumar and Shri Sat Narain and when both these borrowers expired during repayment of the said loan amount, the said Society took action for recovery of outstanding amounts from the applicants being sureties to the said deceased employee. So far as Raj Kumar's loan case is concerned, the respondents have themselves have stated that an outstanding amount of Rs.98000/- in respect of loan of late Shri Raj Kumar had been deposited by the wards of said Shri Raj Kumar. As such the action if any taken against the concerned applicants in relation of recovery of amount of loan taken by Shri Raj Kumar is not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that if any action of recovery of outstanding amount qua the loan of Shri Raj Kumar against applicant no.3 and 4 is quashed and set aside.

So far as the issue of recovery of outstanding amount of loan taken by late Shti Sat Narain towards which the applicants no.1 and 2 are sureties is concerned, the applicants have annexed a copy of notice issued by the said Society on the issue of recovery of the outstanding amount from the retiral dues of the said deceased employee but the respondent nos.2 and 3 ordered recovery of the outstanding amount of loan amount taken by late Shri Sat Narain from the applicant nos.1 and 2 without issuing any notice to them. However, these respondents have stated that they have not received the said notice and due to none receipt of the said notice, they have released the retiral dues to the legal heirs of late Shri Sat Narain and action of recovery from the applicant nos.1 and 2 have been ordered in terms of the provisions of the terms and conditions of the said Society to which the applicant nos.1 and 2 are also members. First of all, we observe that action of respondent nos.2 and 3 is not inconsonance with the rules and law on the subject, as the applicant nos.1 and 2 are sureties to the loan taken by said Shri Sat Narain from the said Society, if recovery of outstanding amount of the said loan is required to be taken, the same has to be done by taking a recourse to the legal remedy available in this regard and not directly by the employer, i.e., respondent nos.2 and 3 in relation to the said outstanding loan amounts only in the garb of any terms and conditions envisaged in the loan agreement executed by the said Society. As such only on this ground as also on the ground that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have not issued any notice to the said applicants before giving effect to the said recovery of the outstanding amount of loan taken by late Shri Sat Narain from the said Society, the action of the respondents ordering recovery from the pay of the applicant nos.1 and 2 is quashed and set aside.

In view of the above, the present OA is allowed. The respondents' action of recovery of amount from the applicants in relation of the said loans amounts, to which the applicants are sureties, is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered from the applicants in relation to the recovery of the said outstanding loan amounts within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.