JUDGMENT & ORDER : The petitioner is a Program Assistant in the Tribal Welfare Department, now posted at Gandacherra, Dhalai and is due to retire very shortly. In the year 2010, he stood the guarantor along with another Mr. Nidan Chandra Bhowmik, not a party in this proceeding, against the “Consumer Durable Loan” obtained by the respondent No.4 to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra branch, the respondent No.5 vide loan account No. CDL/8094301921632. 2. The respondent No.4, the borrower gave a written undertaking dated 26.04.2010 authorising the respondent No.5 to recover the entire loan amount alongwith interest from his S/B A/C No.12186 till liquidation of the loan. In the said undertaking the respondent No.4 had also authorised his employer to realise dues by instalments from his salary in the event of default till liquidation of loan alongwith interest and other charges. The respondent No.3, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the loanee, issued a certificate dated 06.05.2010 which was submitted to the bank by the respondent No.4 while processing the loan. In the said certificate it was pledged to the bank as under: “We also certify that, on default, if intimated we shall realize the entire loan amount along with interest thereon from the salary bill of Sri Achinta Dasgupta, I/C Programme Officer and arrange to credit the proceeds to the loan a/c directly to Tripura Gramin Bank Gandacherra Branch. In case of transfer the due instalment amount will be recorded in L.P.C. of the concerned employee. Further in case of resignation/death/retirement of the employee/officer the entire amount along with due interest will be recovered from terminal benefits payable to the employee/officer or his/her survivors.” 3. The respondent No.4 for availing the said loan issued one letter of authority favouring his Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the respondent No.3 whereby the said DDO was authorised to deduct the monthly instalments in order to re-pay the loan. It was mentioned in the said authority letter that in case the service of the borrower (the respondent No.4) ceases for whatever reason, the entire loan amount including accrued interest thereon may be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the borrower. It was also mentioned that the said authority letter is binding upon the heirs/executors/administrators and assignees of the borrower (the respondent No.4). It was also mentioned that the said authority letter is binding upon the heirs/executors/administrators and assignees of the borrower (the respondent No.4). In addition to this arrangement, the respondent No.4 hypothecated the consumer goods to the respondent No.5 and as per the term of hypothecation, the respondent No.4 pledged that the consumer goods shall remain hypothecated to the bank, the respondent No.5 and those would be first charged as security for realisation of outstanding in the loan account. 4. The petitioner has candidly submitted that as a guarantor, he had also executed one authority letter dated 22.05.2010 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] authorising the bank, the respondent No.5 to realise the outstanding of the loan from his account, in the event of default. According to the petitioner, without giving any prior notice all on a sudden the respondent No.5 (Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra branch) started deducting a sum of Rs.3,000/- from his account which the petitioner maintained being S/B A/c No.8094012312181. On 06.05.2014, the petitioner and the other guarantor namely Mr. Nidan Chandra Bhowmik sent a registered letter to the respondent No.5 requesting them not to deduct the outstanding loan of the respondent No.4 from their bank accounts. 5. In reply thereto, the respondent No.5 by the letter dated 08.05.2014 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] requested the respondent No.2, the Deputy Director under whose control the respondent No.4 was then serving to recover Rs.6000/- per month from the salary bill of the respondent No.4 and remit the same to the CDL account of the respondent No.5 through their Pabiacherra (Kumarghat) branch or transfer to the credit of SB a/c No.8094012312186. The petitioner has further stated that he was not communicated earlier. He came to know when he found deductions from his said account. By another letter dated 13.09.2014 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition], the respondent No.4 made the similar request to the respondent No.2 for remitting the amount as denoted after deducting the same from the salary of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 had the obligation by means of the said pledge to make recovery by deducting from the salary of the borrower. Despite that, deduction of Rs.3000/- from the salary of the petitioner continued. The petitioner and his another guarantor namely Mr. The respondent No.2 had the obligation by means of the said pledge to make recovery by deducting from the salary of the borrower. Despite that, deduction of Rs.3000/- from the salary of the petitioner continued. The petitioner and his another guarantor namely Mr. Nidan Chandra Bhowmik sent another letter dated 30.01.2015 to the respondent No.1, the Director of T.R.P. & P.T.G. department requesting him to direct not to deduct the outstanding loan from their salary or remit the same to the loan account of the respondent No.4. The petitioner and the other guarantor were desperately trying to ensure that the outstanding amount be recovered from the salary of the respondent No.4. 6. The respondents No.2/3 being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the respondent No.4 was authorised to deduct the instalment from the salary of the respondent No.4. But the respondents No.2/3 did not take any action. Thereafter, one notice was served on the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It is asserted that the petitioner is now in serious financial stringency as he has to bear the expenses of treatment of his wife namely Sefali Choudhury who has been suffering from cancer since the month of December, 2013. For such deduction, the petitioner is not in a position to defray all expenses of the treatment. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner urging this court to direct the respondent No.1, 3 and 5 to refund the amount as recovered from the petitioner with interest @ 15% per annum and to pay the petitioner compensation for harassment and mental agony. To support the said relief, the petitioner has referred that recently the respondent No.5, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer had started deducting a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and remitting the same regularly to the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra Branch, the respondent No.5. 7. From a correspondence dated 06.05.2017 addressed by the Deputy Director, North Tripura, TR Division, Kumarghat to the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra it transpires that out of the outstanding balance of Rs.1,59,178/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- has already been deducted from the salary of the respondent No.4. There was some difficulty but it has been asserted that deduction would be regularly made from the respondent No.4. By the said letter, the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank was also requested to stop monthly deduction from the salary of the petitioner. There was some difficulty but it has been asserted that deduction would be regularly made from the respondent No.4. By the said letter, the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank was also requested to stop monthly deduction from the salary of the petitioner. 8. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for the wrong action taken by the respondent No.5, aided by the respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioner has suffered enormously. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that law is well settled on interpretation of the Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act. 9. Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act clearly provides that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. In Kailash Nath Agarwal vs. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Limited reported in (2003) 4 SCC 305 , it has been held by the supreme court that the liability of the guarantor was to remain unaffected by the failure to enforce its mortgage and hypothecation against the assets. Unless there is some specific clause in the contract which can in any way be construed as contrary to co-extensive liability, the liability created under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act shall remain in force. 10. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that he would raise a limited question as to the default of the borrower, the respondent No.4 and the consequential action taken by the respondent No.5. According to him that no notice was issued to the petitioner before deducting the sum from his salary account, even when the guarantors including of the petitioner brought to the notice of the respondent No.5 that the respondent No.4 had his own salary account, but they were not deducting the amount from his salary. In response thereto, the respondent No.5 had asked the DDO to deduct the sum from the respondent No.4. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has simply submitted that it is his information that now from the salary of the respondent No.4 deduction is being made to recover the outstanding of the loan as taken by him and on such premises the recovery from the petitioner shall not be continued. 11. From the other side, Mr. Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel has simply submitted that it is his information that now from the salary of the respondent No.4 deduction is being made to recover the outstanding of the loan as taken by him and on such premises the recovery from the petitioner shall not be continued. 11. From the other side, Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the bank has submitted that the petitioner does not have any right to approach this court for seeking the relief as prayed, inasmuch as obligated by the contract of the guarantee which is still in force, the respondent No.5 has the right to recover the substantive amount accrued as the outstanding in the loan account of the respondent No.4. He has further reiterated that liability of the sureties is co-extensive with the principal debtor. Thus, it is the choice of the creditor from whom he would proceed, whether against the principal debtor or against the sureties unless it is otherwise provided in the contract. In the contract of the guarantee there is no such condition that the respondent No.5 had to approach first the principal debtor. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that the step to recover first should have been taken against the borrower. 12. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted in reference to para-6 of the reply filed by those respondents that in response to the letter of the respondent No.5 under No.F.T.G.B./G.N.C/F.4/893/2014 dated 08.05.2014, the respondent No.2 issued an order of recovery of Rs.3,000/- per month by instalment from the salary of the loanee, considering net payable amount to the salary of the loanee i.e. the respondent No.4 till liquidation of the loan amount alongwith interest vide order No.F.1-20/NTTRD/KGT/Acctt/2014/2635-41 dated 21.01.2016. No amount was deducted by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 from the salary of the petitioner, but Rs.3,000/- is being deducted from the salary of the respondent No.4 and deposited to the Tripura Gramin Bank, Pabiacherra Branch in terms of the letter of request of the Bank. Having come to know that amount is being deducted from the petitioner a letter was sent to the bank for stopping deduction from the petitioner. Amount of Rs.3000/- is being deducted from the respondent No.4 at the instance of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and being deposited into the bank. Having come to know that amount is being deducted from the petitioner a letter was sent to the bank for stopping deduction from the petitioner. Amount of Rs.3000/- is being deducted from the respondent No.4 at the instance of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and being deposited into the bank. In that process, 10 instalments @ Rs.3000/- have been recovered and deposited to the designated account of the respondent No.5. In their reply the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have categorically stated that they had no occasion to deduct any amount from the salary of the petitioner. It is the respondent No.5, as it has appeared from the averments had deducted the said amount from his salary account. But they have asserted that they had sent a letter to the respondent No.5 to stop realising any amount from the petitioner. Even the respondent No.4 in his reply has admitted that a sum of Rs.3000/- per month is being deducted from his salary towards repayment of the loan amount. Moreover, the respondent No.4 has categorically stated in his reply as under: “It is also submitted that, the Respondent No.4 was/is always ready to repay the loan amount, which is liable to be recovered under law. The Respondent No-4 has no intention not to repay/recover the loan amount taken by him. But due to some unavoidable and compelling circumstances, stated just hereinabove, which were beyond his control, he could not recover/repay the monthly instalments regularly.” 13. The respondent No.5, the creditor by filing a reply has admitted that they had deducted instalment @ Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner and that amount have been credited in the loan account of the respondent No.4. Having referred to the undertaking given by the petitioner the respondent No.5 has clearly submitted that they failed to recover the instalment from the salary account of the respondent No.4 as he was transferred from Gandacherra and posted at Kumarghat TRP office. For that reason, he had been withdrawing his salary from the other bank. They have categorically stated that on 24.05.2010, the bank had disbursed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as consumer durable loan (in short CDL loan) with condition that the said amount shall be refunded with interest by 60 instalments. The instalment was determined @ Rs.4,550/-. For that reason, he had been withdrawing his salary from the other bank. They have categorically stated that on 24.05.2010, the bank had disbursed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as consumer durable loan (in short CDL loan) with condition that the said amount shall be refunded with interest by 60 instalments. The instalment was determined @ Rs.4,550/-. The borrower, the respondent No.4 continued to pay the said amount till 08.10.2011, but from October, 2011 the borrower did not deposit the amount in any manner. However, the bank-respondent has denied the allegation of the petitioner that no letter was issued to him before deduction. The bank-respondent has categorically stated that the letter was issued to both the guarantors as stated but they did not take any action to ensure recovery of the instalments. As a result, on invoking the authority letter as part of the contract of guarantee, a sum of Rs.3000/- each from the petitioner and the other guarantor as stated they had started realising the outstanding. According to them, there is no infirmity in the process. Further they have stated that the Gandacherra Branch had recovered Rs.42,000/- in total from the guarantor namely Sri Nidan Ch. Bhowmik as on 02.05.2015 and as on 02.06.2017, Rs.1,17,000/- was recovered from the other guarantor namely Sri Chiranjib Choudhury and as on 05.06.2017 Rs.33,000/- was recovered from the loanee. Therefore as on 07.07.2017 a sum of Rs.92,500/- remained as the balance against the said loan. The respondent No.5 has further averred that they had written a letter to recover a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month from the respondent No.4, but a sum of Rs.3000/- is only being recovered from the salary of the respondent No.4 with effect from July, 2013. The respondent No.5 has given the full description as recovered as under: “The Gandacherra Branch had recovered sixteen instalments from the loanee for an amount of Rs.4,550/- each (Rs.4,550/- X 16= Rs.72,800/-) w.e.f. 05.07.2010, 06.08.2010, 03.09.2010, 01.10.2010, 01.11.2010, 01.12.2010, 05.01.2011, 04.02.2011, 01.03.2011, 02.04.2011, 02.05.2011, 01.06.2011, 01.07.2011, 01.08.2011, 29.09.2011 to 08.10.2011) and thereafter the loanee could not make payment w.e.f. 2011 (November) to 2014 (February) and on being compelled the said Branch has been deducting for an amount of Rs.3,000/- each w.e.f. 28.03.2014 to 02.06.2017 from the guarantor Sri Chiranjib Choudhury and as on 07.07.2017 Rs.92,500/- is still outstanding balance in the account of Sri Achintya Dasgupta.” 14. It has therefore clearly transpired that from the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- has been recovered to the credit against the outstanding in the loan account of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.5 has stated that recovery from the other guarantor namely Nidan Chandra Bhowmik has been stopped as he has retired from the service. By implication, therefore, it appears that the recovery from the petitioner is still continuing or at least there has been no stop to the recovery. 15. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the respondent No.4 shall pay the entire outstanding [the principal loan amount+interest] put thereon by way of instalments. But when he was asked by this court whether he would repay the said outstanding by enhanced instalments he could not make any definite reply. 16. Having appreciated the submission and the circumstances of transaction as averred in the writ petition and the replies filed by the writ petitioner and the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondent No.1 shall not recover any further amount from the petitioner. However that will not absolve the petitioner’s co-extensive liability as the guarantor of the loan. This measure has been observed by this court that the monthly instalment is being realised from the respondent No.4 by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for repayment of the outstanding loan under reference. (ii) The respondent No.2 or the other Drawing and Disbursing Officers, who may be in control of disbursing pay and allowances of the respondent No.4 shall continue to recover the instalments from the respondent No.4 till the entire outstanding (the principal loan amount, interest thereon and other charges) is liquidated. The outstanding shall mean and operate as the total outstanding without adjusting the amount realised from the petitioner. Thus, it is made further clear that the outstanding would be calculated excluding the recovery made from the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent No.4 shall repay the entire outstanding in terms of the loan agreement. The amount that has been recovered from the petitioner shall not however be refunded right at this point of time. Thus, it is made further clear that the outstanding would be calculated excluding the recovery made from the petitioner inasmuch as the respondent No.4 shall repay the entire outstanding in terms of the loan agreement. The amount that has been recovered from the petitioner shall not however be refunded right at this point of time. But after the total outstanding in terms of the above is recovered from the respondent No.4 the said amount as recovered from the petitioner shall be released in favour of the petitioner with interest @ 5% per annum within a fortnight when the outstanding would be liquidated by way of repayment from the respondent No.4. Since the other guarantor has not come before the court this court, will not observe anything on the said amount. To the extent as aforementioned, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.