JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the memo dated 23.3.2000 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), issued by the Inspector of Schools, Santirbazar, South Tripura, respondent No.3 herein wherein it is stated that instalments of loan of S.B.I., Santirbazar will be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by way of 60 installments @ Rs.755/- per month. 2. Heard Mr. AC Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA for the respondent No. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. S Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, State Bank of India. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner entered into service in the year 1990 as Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura and while he was in service the Inspector of Schools, Santirbazar, South Tripura, respondent No. 3 herein, issued the Memo dated 23.3.2000 (AnnexureA to the writ petition) wherein it is stated that the instalments of loan of S.B.I., Santirbazar will be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by way of 60 installments @ Rs.755/ per month. Being aggrieved by the said order of recover the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. 4. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner took a loan amounting to Rs.10,000/ from the State Bank of India, Santirbazar Branch, South Tripura and from the aforesaid amount, the respondent bank deducted Rs.2,500/ as subsidy. Hence, virtually the loan amount was reduced to Rs.7,500/ and out of the aforesaid Rs.7,500/ the petitioner repaid Rs.2,650/ by 28 monthly instalments from 6.7.1994 to 7.10.1999 and the Inspector of School, respondent No. 3 also deducted Rs.5,285/ @ Rs.755/ per month from the salary of the petitioner. So, in all the petitioner has already repaid Rs.7,935/-, i.e. more than the loan amount of Rs.7,500/-, but now the respondent No.4 is illegally claiming Rs.33,765/- from the petitioner without any basis. 5. So, in all the petitioner has already repaid Rs.7,935/-, i.e. more than the loan amount of Rs.7,500/-, but now the respondent No.4 is illegally claiming Rs.33,765/- from the petitioner without any basis. 5. The State respondents did not file any counter affidavit even after getting opportunity, but the respondent State Bank of India filed a detailed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner did not challenge the Memoranda No. F. 20 (2)FIN (G)/81 dated 18th November, 1986, No. F. 20(2)FIN (G)/81 dated 5th January, 1993, No. F. 20 (2)FIN (G)/81 dated 2nd September, 1994, and the subsequent Memorandum No. F. 8 (1)DIF/CHL/32934088 dated 6th December, 1994 (Anneuxre2 series to the counter affidavit). 6. The further case of the respondent Bank is that the respondent No. 3 has acted within his jurisdiction and the power vested in him by the State and he has no other option but to follow the Memoranda issued by the State for recovery of the Bank loans from the salary bill of its employee, who are the defaulters of repayment of bank loan taken by them. It is also stated that when a person took loan under an agreement he is bound to repay the said amount of loan. 7. Mr. Bhowmik while urging for setting aside the order of recovery (Annexure-A to the writ petition) contended that the DDO has no power to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner. It is only the bank who can take the necessary steps for recovery of the loan amount, if any, as per the agreement of composite term loan. He further urged that when neither the State Government is the guarantor nor any undertaking is given by the petitioner for deduction of any amount from his salary, the DDO is prohibited from recovering any amount from the salary of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner took loan of Rs.10,000/ and after subsidy it came to Rs.7,500/ and in the meantime, the petitioner has already paid more than that. Hence, the respondent Bank has no right to claim any further amount from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner was never allowed to see the books of account and not only that the Annexure2 series to the affidavit in opposition of the bank respondent were not placed before the petitioner. Hence, the respondent Bank has no right to claim any further amount from the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner was never allowed to see the books of account and not only that the Annexure2 series to the affidavit in opposition of the bank respondent were not placed before the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of those memoranda the State respondents are not entitled to recover any loan amount from the salary of the petitioner. He contended that when the petitioner took loan he was unemployed and he is not bound to repay the said loan amount beyond the terms and condition of the agreement after his employment. He submitted that as the Memo dated 23.3.2000 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3 is without any authority the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Deb while resisting the prayer of the petitioner would contend that this Court cannot quash the order of recovery, Memo dated 23.03.2000 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) as the same is not under challenge before this Court. In support of his aforesaid contention, he referred to the prayer of the petitioner made in the writ petition, which are as follows : a) Admit this petition; b) Issue notice upon the respondents; c) Call for the records; d) AND after hearing would be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 not to deduct any furthing from the salary of the petitioner. AND/OR In the meantime pass an interim order directing the Respondent No.3 not to deduct any money till disposal of this petition. AND To pass any other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper. He further contended that the petitioner has also not challenged the respective memoranda (Annexure-2 series to the counter affidavit) wherein the respondent Government directed the DDO concerned to recover the Bank loans by deducting the amount from the salary bill when a government servant is defaulter in making repayment of the bank loan. He further contended that the petitioner has also not challenged the respective memoranda (Annexure-2 series to the counter affidavit) wherein the respondent Government directed the DDO concerned to recover the Bank loans by deducting the amount from the salary bill when a government servant is defaulter in making repayment of the bank loan. He further contended that unless those memoranda are either set aside or quashed by this Court the respondent No. 3 being a government employee is bound to follow the government instructions because if he does not follow the government instructions in the Memoranda (Annexure-2 series to the Counter Affidavit) that would be in dereliction of his duties and he would also have to face disciplinary proceeding. 9. Mr. Deb again submitted that this court on 31.10.2000 in CM Appl. No. 359/2000 though stayed the memo dated 23.3.2000, but by subsequent order allowed the respondents to recover the loan amount by way of 100 instalments instead of 60 instalments and the petitioner did not challenge the said order by way of filing an appeal. He finally submitted that the instant case is fully covered by the judgment of this court dated 10.9.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.415 of 2000 (Ajit Ch. Choudhury vrs. The State of Tripura and others) wherein this court after taking note of the Finance Department's notification dated 18.11.1986 as well as notification dated 6.12.1994 dismissed the said writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records available, it appears that admittedly the memo dated 23.3.2000 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Moreso, when a citizen took loan from a bank, he is bound to repay the same as per the terms of the agreement. The method of installments for recovery as ordered by the Inspector of Schools may create a hardship to the petitioner but that does not oust his jurisdiction to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner for remitting the same to the bank authority in view of the government memoranda (Anneuxre2 series to the counter affidavit). The method of installments for recovery as ordered by the Inspector of Schools may create a hardship to the petitioner but that does not oust his jurisdiction to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner for remitting the same to the bank authority in view of the government memoranda (Anneuxre2 series to the counter affidavit). It appears from record that the petitioner has neither challenged the recovery order (Annexure-A to the writ petition) nor has challenged the memoranda issued by the State Government from time to time (Annexure2 series to the counter affidavit) and when an order is not under challenge the court has no power to set aside the same. 11. The aforesaid memoranda were issued by the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura respectively and upon going through the aforesaid memoranda it appears that the DDO is bound to deduct the amount of loan installments from the salary bills of an employee and he also has the liability to deposit the same by challan under the Head of Account "843 Civil Deposits not bearing interest other Departmental deposit" meaning thereby there is a separate Head for deduction of the loan amount from the salary of the government employees. It further appears from the memorandum dated 6th December, 1994 that respective DDOs have got the contractual obligation to make recovery of the loan instalments by deduction from salary of the loanee employees. 12. For ready reference, it would be proper for this court to reproduce the relevant portion of the memo dated 18th November, 1986 particularly para 3 of the said memo as well as the memo dated 6th December, 1994 particularly para 2 of the said memo. Accordingly, the same are reproduced hereunder: No. F. 20(2)FIN(G)/81 Government of Tripura Finance Department Dated, Agartala, the 18th November, 1986 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 3. After careful consideration it has been decided that where cash recovery is difficult or inconvenient, the DDO may follow the following procedure: (a) To deduct the amount of loan instalments from the bills by deposit of the amounts by challan under the head of account "843Civil Deposits Deposits not bearing interest Other Departmental Deposit"; and (b) To draw the amount immediately thereafter in the same month by debit to the same head of account and refund deposits from disbursement to the bank/banks concerned. Where, however, there is no difficulty in the recovery of the outstanding bank loans, the existing procedure (Cash recovery) may continue. No. F. 8 (1)DIF/CHL/32934088 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE) Dated, Agartala, the 6th December, 1994 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2. Since the loan had been granted to the employees on the clear stipulation that in case of default, recovery would be made from the salary bill of the employees and the respective Heads of Offices had given an undertaking to make such a recovery and the loanees had agreed to such a course, it has all the trappings of a tripartite agreement. Respective DDOs have got the contractual obligation to make recovery by deduction from salary of the loanee employees. The law department has clarified that this is a legal obligation on the part of the DDI and therefore deliberate non recovery by deduction in case of default to Bank shall call for appropriate disciplinary action. 13. In view of the above there was no other option before the respondent No. 3, DDO except to recover the loan amount from the salary of the petitioner. 14. As it is stated supra that such deduction may cause a hardship to the loanee employee like the petitioner and if there is any hardship it is open to the employee to approach his employer, appointing authority, to provide him with more installments to reduce the amount of recovery as proposed but in the instant case after the order of recovery vide Annexure-A to the writ petition the petitioner never approached the appropriate authority as well as the DDO to reduce the amount and not only that, in the instant writ petition he did not challenge the said order of recovery. Therefore, according to this Court, the submission of Mr. Deb has some force. 15. The submission of Mr. Bhowmik, inter alia, that neither the DDO nor the government has any power to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner might have some force subject to the petitioner challenged the memoranda issued by the Government (Annexure2 series to the Counter affidavit) but the same have not been challenged before this Court. Hence, this Court cannot accept his submission. 16. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 17. Hence, this Court cannot accept his submission. 16. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 17. However, the dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority as well as to the Bank respondent to reduce the amount of installments as ordered by the DDO and also to settle up the dispute with the bank, if so advised. No cost. Petition dismissed.