Head Note : Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitioner's deceased father was a Conductor in the Kerala Transport Corporation - he availed of two loans from the 3rd respondent petitioner, before the liability could be discharged in full, his father expired - petitioner the benefit of dying in harness scheme, he was appointed in the KSRTC as a Conductor - recovery proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for realizing his father's liability - challenging the said recovery proceedings, the writ petition is filed - petitioner submitted that 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 - 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 - Court Held – recovery now effected against the petitioner evidenced by Ext.P1 and P2 to P4 prohibitory orders are clearly illegal - orders are set aside - directed that amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded - 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. (Para 3,4) Judgment ANTONYDOMINIC, J. 1. Petitioner'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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.