Antony Dominic, J.@mdashPetitioner''s deceased father Sri. Kunjumon P.M was a Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.
He had availed of two loans for an amount of Rs. . 12,815 and Rs. . 4005 from the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, before the liability
could be discharged in full, his father expired. Subsequently extending the petitioner the benefit of dying in harness scheme, he was appointed in the
KSRTC as a Conductor in March, 2006. Now recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for realising his father''s liability. It is
challenging the said recovery proceedings, the writ petition is filed. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 on instruction confirms that
the petitioner does not have any liability to them and that what is sought to be recovered by issuance of Ext.P1 and Exts.P2 to P4 prohibitory
orders is the liability of his deceased father.
2. The liability of a deceased can be recovered from his legal representatives to the extent the legal representatives have inherited the estate of the
deceased An employment secured by a dependent son under the dying in harness scheme of the employer cannot be said to be an estate inherited
by him. Therefore, recovery now effected against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P1 and P2 to P4 prohibitory orders are clearly illegal. Therefore,
these orders are set aside. It is directed that amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded. Needless to say that this judgment will
not stand in the way of the respondents from proceeding against the assets of the deceased even if it is now in the hands of the legal heirs.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
