JUDGMENT : 1. The issue projected in this case by the petitioner is a terse one, but which can have deep repercussions on the rights of the Co-operative Societies operating under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act), to recover amounts disbursed by them to their members, who are or were Government servants. 2. The petitioner, which is an Urban Co-operative Bank, within the ambit of the “KCS Act” and the Rules thereunder, impugns Exhibit P4 order of the Government dated 04.05.2019 – to the extent to which it relates to Co-operative Societies – which appears to inflexibly mandate that, notwithstanding the statutory consent obtained by the Societies from its members at the time when loans were availed of by the latter -to the effect that 'his employer or the officer disbursing his salary or wages shall be competent to deduct from the salary or retiral benefits payable to him by the employer', recovery cannot be affected against his retiral benefits, unless the said person gives another consent for such purpose, at the time of his retirement, to his Drawing and Disbursing Officer. 3. The apprehension of the petitioner, as revealed from the averments in this writ petition and the submissions made at the Bar, is that even when the aforementioned consent is a statutory one, as per the provisions of Section 37 of the "KCS Act", when another consent is imposed to be obtained at the time of his retirement -which alone is then prescribed to enable recovery from his pensionary benefits -it offers the loanee an undue and unfair advantage of being able to refuse such, thus being in a position to virtually interdict the recovery against him. 4. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Reginald Valsalan – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that Ext.P4 creates an opportunity for a rather deleterious consequence, because it is plausible that a loanee would refuse the consent required under it at the time of his retirement, which would then consequentially trench upon the rights of the Societies, accrued to them under Section 37 of the "KCS Act", to effect recovery against his retiral benefits. The learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that if Ext.P4 is allowed to operate, it is more than likely that many or most government employees will refuse to offer consent at the time of their retirement, thus being able to go free, without settling the loan availed by them from the Cooperative Societies. 5. Smt.M.R.Sreelatha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, responded to the afore contentions of the petitioner, pointing out that Ext.P4 is a general order, thought of by the Government to implicitly conform with the imperative requirements of Rule 2 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) She explained that, normally, under the restrictive provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no part of the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of a retired employee can be proceeded against and that this is more so since section 37 of the "KCS Act" only permits such against the salary of an employee while in service and not against his retiral benefits. She added that it is, therefore, that Ext.P4 has been issued, mandating that unless a consent is given by an employee under Rule 2 of Part III KSR at the time of his/her retirement, no part of an outstanding loan liability can be recovered and paid to the Society by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, from his/her retiral benefits. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader further reiterated that since Ext.P4 is intended to operate as a general instruction under Rule 2 of Part III KSR; and since it statutorily provides for such a consent to be obtained before the retiral benefits of an employee can be proceeded against, the Government thought it fit to incorporate the same into it. 7. Smt.M.R.Sreelatha then submitted that there is another reason why Ext.P4 has been issued, namely, that unless a consent is taken from an employee at the time of his/her retirement, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of his/her retiral benefits may not be aware of the loan liability. She concluded, asserting that, therefore, a fresh consent, notwithstanding that the employee may have given an earlier one under Section 37 of the "KCS Act" to the Co-operative Society at the time of availing of the loan from them, is requisite to be obtained before deductions from his/her retiral benefits can be effected. 8. She concluded, asserting that, therefore, a fresh consent, notwithstanding that the employee may have given an earlier one under Section 37 of the "KCS Act" to the Co-operative Society at the time of availing of the loan from them, is requisite to be obtained before deductions from his/her retiral benefits can be effected. 8. When I hear the learned Special Government Pleader as afore, it must be remembered that it is the most basic and fundamental principle of service jurisprudence that no person can be imposed a detriment of recovery of amounts from his DCRG – which is otherwise impermissible – unless he gives his consent for such action. No doubt, Section 37 of the “KCS Act” creates a mechanism for deduction only from the salary of a debtor by his employer and for its payment into the loan account with the Co-operative Society. However, the germane question is, if, an employee, at the time of issuance of his statutory consent for such purpose under Section 37 of the "KCS Act", unequivocally further agrees in writing that such deduction can be effected even from his retiral benefits in future, a fresh consent requires to be obtained from him/her when the said event occurs, under the afore mentioned Rule of the KSR. 9. I am certain that this is not the manner in which Rule 2 of Part III KSR operates, especially because the said Rule is intended to affirm future good conduct of the pensioner as an implied condition of every grant of pension. 10. This is because, as far as Government employees who have given a statutory consent -under Section 37 of the “KCS Act”, to the Society from which they had availed loans -to the unequivocal effect that the same can be recovered both from their salary and retiral benefits, they can certainly not impel an ex post facto contention that, since they had not offered a further and additional consent for recovery from their DCRG at the time of their retirement, under the purlieus of Rule 2 Part III KSR, no such is permissible, since the aforementioned earlier consent is statutory in one part to the extent of recovery from salary is concerned; and contractual in the other part –qua recovery from retiral benefits. 11. 11. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that this Court will be justified in reading down Ext.P4 as far as recovery by Co-operative Societies towards loans disbursed by them is concerned; thus declaring that the prescriptions therein will apply only to a person who had not given any contractual consent to the Society to recover the loan availed of by him/her from the retiral benefits, either along with or subsequent to the statutory consent offered by him/her as regards recovery from salary under Section 37 of the KCS Act. 12. That being so concluded, I am without doubt that the "practical difficulty" projected by Smt.M.R.Sreelatha, learned Special Government Pleader, in effecting recovery from the retiral benefits of an employee without a fresh consent at the time of his/her retirement, namely, that the employer may not be aware of the loan liability, can surely obtain no favour -either legally or factually -because it is incontestable that the statutory consent issued by the employee in favour of the Co-operative Society at the time of his availing of the loan is normally placed before the employer, based on which alone recovery from his/her salary is initiated. Therefore, one fails to understand why and how the employer can maintain that unless a new consent, at the time of retirement, is issued by an employee, it cannot be aware of the liability. This stand, surely, is contrary to reason or logic. 13. I must, however, make it crystally clear that I have not forayed into the legality of the obtention of a contractual undertaking from the loanee by the Cooperative Society, along with or subsequent to his /her statutory consent under Section 37 of the "KCS Act", to the effect that he/she authorises his/her employer to deduct and pay them the outstanding in the loan liability -it being not necessary for this Court to do so at this stage -and that such issues are left open to be decided in future, if it becomes so warranted. Thus, to end, this writ petition is ordered, declaring that the requisites of Ext.P4 would come to apply only in the case where the loanee/debtor has not issued a contractual consent -either simultaneous with or later to the statutory consent under Section 37 of the "KCS Act" to the Co-operative Society, to the effect that his /her employer can deduct and pay to the loan account from his retiral benefits. Axiomatically, in all other cases Ext.P4 would implicitly apply. This writ petition is thus ordered.