B. Sukesh v. State Bank of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/2ND CHAITHRA, 1939 WP(C).NO. 19935 OF 2012 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- B.SUKESH, AGED 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.TC.10/1088 KRWA - 16 - A KAVALOOR LANE, VATTIYURKAVU P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695013 BY ADVS.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH CHILD WELFARE COMPLEX, LMS COMPOUND TRIVANDRUM-695 033 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CGO COMPLEX, POONKULAM VELLAYANI P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 522. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA (PENSION BRANCH) CCPC GANAPATHI KOVIL ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O. TRIVANDRUM-695 014. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.19935 OF 2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER BEARING NO.229841009171 DATED 16-8-2010, ISSUED BY THE SR. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAO (CENSUS), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT-P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-3-2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.BR/MISC DATED 30-32012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.SARB/TVM/5192/11-12 DATED 26-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, NAMELY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN, AS ENCLOSURE TO P3. EXHIBIT-P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS INDICATING PAYMENT OF RS.93,000/- AS EARLY AS IN THE YEAR 2006. EXHIBIT-P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, DATED 9TH APRIL 2012. EXHIBIT-P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEATING NO.SARB/TVM/16/299/12-13 DATED 29.6.2012 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN BEARING NO.OBO(T) NO.83/18535/2011-12 DATED 29TH JUNE 2012. EXT.P9:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S. NO.15/04 DATED 08.04.2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1(A):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(B):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(C):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(D):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. ANNEXURE R1(E):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN. ANNEXURE R1(F):COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER'S LOAN DATED 8.10.2001 WITH SBI, PATTOM BRANCH. W.P.(C) NO.19935 OF 2012 ANNEXURE R1(G):COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER'S LOAN DATED 4.8.2000 WITH SBI, ALTHARA JUNCTION BRANCH. ANNEXURE R1(H): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER'S LOAN DATED 22.10.2001, WITH SBI, TRIVANDRUM MAIN BRANCH. ANNEXURE R1(I):COPY OF THE PERSONAL-LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 08.102001, EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE BANK'S PATTOM BRANCH. ANNEXURE R1(J):COPY OF THE PERSONAL LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 08.10.2001, EXECUTED BETWEEN THE BANK AND THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SKV ## DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J =================== W.P.(C). No.19935 of 2012 ======================= Dated this the 23[rd] day of March, 2017 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner, who has retired from official service, has an account with State Bank of India, into which his pension amounts are credited. He also has a loan account with the Bank, which is now overdue. When his account was credited with the pension amount, the Bank proceeded to recover substantial portions of the same to adjust it against the loan that was outstanding. The petitioner objected to this and the Bank then issued Ext.P7 order saying that they propose to appropriate a portion of the monthly pension towards the loan account every month and accordingly earmarked an amount of Rs.7,000/- to be taken from his pension for appropriation into the loan account stating that the balance would be sufficient for his sustenance. The petitioner has impugned Ext.P7 in this writ petition. 2. Emphatic declarations in law, that pensions are not W.P.(C).No.19935 of 2012 2 amenable to attachment or recovery under the provisions of the Civil Procedure, have been made by several courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A learned Judge of this court has also considered this issue in detail in the year 2014 and in the judgment reported as Leela Bhai v Indian Overseas Bank [2014 (1) KLT 1036], it is concluded that the pension granted on account of past services shall not be liable to be seized, attached or sequestered by any court at the instance of the creditor for any demand against such pension. A similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in the judgment reported in Muthuiruvakkal A. v. State Bank of India and Another [2016 KHC 2587], wherein that Court has taken a further view that even amounts in SB accounts which relates to the pension of the employee cannot be subjected to attachment or recovery. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 because it clearly says that the bank proposes to apportion certain amount from W.P.(C).No.19935 of 2012 3 his monthly pension to be set off against the loan dues. I am certain that the petitioner is on terra firm in his challenge against the said order. Going by the binding proceedings, I have not doubt in my mind that the Bank cannot, in any manner, attach or recover money from his monthly pension and to that extent Ext.P7 is bad. I, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the said order and I do so. 4. I could have left this matter here and closed this writ petition. However I notice that it is a specific contention of the bank that even though, in Ext.P7 order, they say that they are attaching the monthly pension, they are only exercising the banker's general lien over the SB account, in to which the monthly pension is paid. I am sure that this is a cirtutous method of getting over the rigor of law against attachment of pension amounts. I say this because I am told by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SB account maintained by his client with the State Bank of India is an exclusive pension W.P.(C).No.19935 of 2012 4 account and that only pension amounts are credited into it. If that be so, even if the amounts are credited into such account, it does not loose the character of being pension and be out of the protective rigor of law that saves it from further attachment. The submission of the Bank that they are exercising a lien on the account presumably under Section 171 of the contract Act, therefore, cannot be countenanced. As long as the account remains the pension account into which only the pension amounts of the petitioner are credited, I am of the view that the protection from attachment should be available to such amounts even after it is credited into the account. 5. In such circumstances, I close this writ petition directing the Bank to not to recover or appropriate any amount from the monthly pension of the petitioner towards the alleged dues in to his loan account. 6. That having been said, I notice that the petitioner W.P.(C).No.19935 of 2012 5 has also made a prayer that the amounts appropriated by the Bank earlier be repaid to him. Even though I find the appropriation itself as being wrong, I do not think that I would be justified in now asking the Bank to re-credit the amounts in the savings account after debiting his loan account. This should only cause more prejudice to the petitioner because if this is done the loan account would obtain much more inflated figures, thus burdening the petitioner to a larger debt. I do not think that the petitioner would be benefited by such an exercise even though I have no doubt in my mind that the recovery from his pension was not in accordance with the extant law. I also do not deem it necessary to order repayment by the bank because I see that even though this writ petition was filed in the year 2012, no interim orders had been granted by this court thus enabling the Bank to make the appropriation until now. I, therefore, decline that part of the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition. W.P.(C).No.19935 of 2012 6 This writ petition is thus ordered, subject to my observations above. Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE SKV