BANGARU ANNAMANIMMA Vs. ANDHRA BANK
LAWS(APH)-2019-10-42
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 23,2019

Bangaru Annamanimma Appellant
VERSUS
ANDHRA BANK Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M Ganga Rao, J. - (1.)The petitioner is retired bank employee filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in debiting the petitioner's pension account and family pension account and freezing both the accounts of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 60 (g) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 11 of Pension Act, 1871 and violation of provisions of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
(2.)The case of the petitioner is that, in the year 1982 she was employed with 1st respondent bank. Her husband was also an employee in the 1st respondent bank. In the year 2007, her husband suffered multiple organ failure due to Type-I Diabetes and passed away leaving behind him the petitioner and her daughter and son. As her husband hospitalized and bed ridden for a period of six months. At that point of time, to save her husband life, she borrowed money from the private money lenders with interest. Due to pressures of the money lenders to return the money, she took voluntary retirement in the year 2014. From then onwards, she has been on physiotherapy treatment for severe vertigo sufferance. The respondents had sanctioned educational loan to her daughter's MBBS course. But due to sudden demise of her husband, her daughter has not taken admission due to paucity of funds and later she completed her LL.B. and recently she started her practice as a Lawyer. Her son completed B.Tech recently and got a small job in small company in Hyderabad. In the year 2008, she availed education loan from the 3rd respondent bank for her son's education. Since then the 3rd respondent bank is debiting loan dues from her pension amount. So far as education loan is concerned, she has no objection. Her family pension is being credited to her pension account maintained with the 4th respondent bank. Further when she was working as Dy.Manager, Andhra Bank, Srinagar, Guntur, she has availed credit card facility from the 1st respondent bank, she never used the credit card, but she used the card once for an amount of Rs.60,000/- to meet her medical expenses and thereafter she could not attend the duties properly and she took voluntary retirement to pay off the loans with retirement benefits. When she lost her credit card, she requested the bank to block her credit card. But the bank has not taken any action to block her credit card. However, to the best of her knowledge no one used the credit card.
(3.)However, the credit card dues, accumulated increased for non-payment of the due amount as she lost sight of the credit card. All of a sudden, the 1st respondent instructed the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to debit her family pension amount and her pension amount toward repayment of credit card due. She approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and obtained detailed statement and submitted a representation on 27.12.2016 explaining her situation and pension account could not be debited towards credit card dues, as there is statutory prohibition under the provisions of Section 60(g) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871. Despite the same, the respondents continued debiting the amounts from her family pension account maintained at the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Even at the time of voluntary retirement, much of benefits were attached by giving frivolous reasons. However, her present grievance is with regard to the debiting of her pension account towards credit card dues and freezing the pension accounts. The petitioner made another representation on 07.12.2018 to the respondents, same was received by the Nodal Officer, Credit Card Department of 1st respondent bank, inspite of that no action is initiated till date. She came to know that, as on 01.12.2018 her credit card due is Rs.1,85,344.12/-, she approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and made a proposal for one time settlement. The respondents also addressed a letter vide Lr.No.0226/5/186 dated 07.12.2018 to proceed with the one time settlement. So far the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not come up with the amount for one time settlement. She is ready to pay the amounts due as one time settlement. In so far as the employees are concerned, the bank has power to waive off 40% of the due amount toward one time settlement. Action of the respondents in debiting her family pension account towards credit card dues is illegal and arbitrary.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.