Tripura High Court
Mahesh Lal Yadav vs State Bank Of India on 7 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 777 of 2024
Mahesh Lal Yadav
son of late Govinda Lal Yadav,
resident of Khejurbagan,
P.S. NCC PS, West Tripura, Agartala
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Bank of India
To be represented by the Chairman,
State Bank Bhawan, M.C. Road, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400 021.
2. The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India (North Circle)
Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala, Tripura
3. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Kunjavan Branch
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 799006
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
Ms. S. Deb Barman, Advocate
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Prabir Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & order : 07.04.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes __
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
appearing along with Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents Bank.
[2] This present petition is filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"I. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
and/or direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued
whereby directing the Respondents to release monthly
pension of the Petitioner which has been withheld by the
Respondents w.e.f. 11.04 2022.
II. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders
and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued
whereby directing the Respondents to release the monthly
pension of the Petitioner along with interest @9% per
annum we.f. 11.04.2022.
III. Make the rules absolute
IV. Call for records..............."
[3] The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner
served under Central Reserve Police Force in the post of CT/Cook.
The Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2012 rendering his pensionable
service. It is stated that after his retirement, Pension Payment
Order No. 239031253330 was issued in favour of the petitioner by
sanctioning regular monthly pension. It is also contended by the
petitioner that he used to receive his monthly pension through
Account no. 30364717486 lying with State Bank of India, Kunjaban
Branch and he used to draw his monthly pension through the
aforesaid account. Since 11.04.2022, the respondent concerned has
stopped disbursing monthly pension of the petitioner as a result
thereof, since 11.04.2022 to till date, his monthly pension @Rs.
25,175 has not been disbursed by the SBI, Kunjaban Branch
through account no 30364717486 and the petitioner is suffering
hardship. It is further submitted in the instant petition that the
petitioner visited the SBI, Kunjaban Branch to know as to why
disbursement of monthly pension has been stopped but he could
not get any response and the Branch Manager, SBI, Kunjaban and
other official staffs working under him failed to give any answer to
the petitioner and no reason was also disclosed to him. The only
answer which the petitioner used to get from the respondent is that
he cannot be allowed to draw his pension.
[4] The petitioner issued a legal notice, dated, 21.09.2024,
through the engaged counsel to the Regional Manager, SBI North
Circle i.e. respondent No.2 and Branch Manager, SBI i.e Respondent
No. 3. By that Legal Notice the respondents were asked to release
petitioner‟s arrear monthly pension w.e.f 11.04.2022 with interest.
[5] The Regional Manager, SBI, North Circle and Branch
Manager i.e. the Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 made response through
their engaged advocate, who by a letter informed the petitioner,
that, as per the written communication of enforcement agency,
dated, 06.04.2022 to the Branch Manager, SBI, Kunjaban, the
monthly pension disbursement of the petitioner through Account no.
30364717486 has been stopped in view of the fact, that, account
no. 30364717486 has been frozen and unless there is appropriate
direction from competent authority to release the account from
"withhold", the notice receivers cannot by any means redress the
grievance of the notice giver, i.e. the Petitioner herein, as said in
the legal notice, dated 21.09.2024. It is stated in the petition that
the petitioner is not aware of any such order passed by the
enforcement authority to withhold /stop the monthly pension of the
petitioner.
[6] It is contended in the reply made by Respondent No.2 &
3 through learned advocate that, the petitioner has been
absconding as a criminal case has been registered vide NCC. P.S.
Case No. 2021 NCC/016 dated, 14.02.2021, u/s 333/148/325/
307/427 IPC and enforcement agency vide written communication,
dated, 06.04.2022 directed to freeze the Account no. 30364717486.
[7] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the response
made by the respondents Nos. 2 & 3 through their engaged lawyer
that, the petitioner is absconding, is false and malicious statement
as from the order dated, 30.08.2024 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Court No 7, Agartala in Case No. PRC(WP)
196/2024, it can be seen that, Mahesh Lal Yadav @ Raghu Gowala
(petitioner herein) and Umesh Yadav @ Biki surrendered before
court on 30.08.2024 and the learned Court granted bail to both of
them on the condition mentioned and accordingly, they are on bail
and trail has not commenced.
[8] It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that
pension is a hard earned property and the respondents have no
authority to touch such property of the petitioner and they cannot
also stop him from drawing his pension from his pension account
lying with them. It is further stated, that, right to life guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to draw
monthly pension to which the petitioner is legally entitled to. Mr.
Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, therefore, urges this Court to
allow the instant petition filed by the petitioner granting all his
reliefs as sought for in the petition.
[9] On the contrary, Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel for the
respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner. He contends that on 06.04.2022, one letter was
communicated to the respondents issued by an S.I. of Police, ABN
TOP, under New Capital Complex P.S. with the request to freez/hold
the account of the petitioner since, on the basis of a written
complaint of another S.I. of NCC PS, a criminal case had been
registered against the petitioner. Considering the said fact, the
respondent bank has frozen the account of the petitioner and thus,
the respondents cannot be held responsible for non-payment of
pension to the petitioner as they only performed their duty.
[10] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the
material evidence on record. Counter-affidavit has also been filed
on behalf of the respondents.
[11] It is seen from record that in reply to the legal notice
dated 21.09.2024 served by the engaged counsel of the petitioner,
a letter was issued to the petitioner by the engaged counsel of the
respondents without any date, mentioning that the Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Kunjaban Branch have been directed
by the enforcement agency vide written communication dated
06.04.2022 to freeze the account No.30364717486 of the petitioner
maintained in the said branch. On perusal of the counter-affidavit
filed by the respondents, it is seen that the said written
communication dated 06.04.2022 which was addressed to the
respondents, was issued by an S.I. of Police, ABN TOP, under New
Capital Complex P.S. with the request to freeze/hold the account of
the petitioner since, on the basis of a written complaint of another
S.I. of NCC PS, a criminal case had been registered against the
petitioner.
[12] On the basis of a communication received from an S.I. of
a police station of the State, the respondents have frozen the
account of the petitioner mentioning the office of the S.I. as an
„enforcement agency‟ and as a result, since 11.04.2022, the
petitioner is unable to draw his monthly pension from his account
with the respondent bank and has been suffering hardship. Before
freezing the account of the petitioner, the necessary guidelines
ought to have been followed properly, but, the respondents failed to
do so. No bank guidelines are placed on record, no lawful
proceedings or orders of Court or authority is placed on record. The
decision of freezing the account of the petitioner is not supported by
any lawful order or action. The letter of the S.I. referred is non est
in the eye of law to freeze the pension account. The action of the
bank in freezing the pension account is unauthorized, without
jurisdiction, arbitrary and highhanded. The counter affidavit filed
and documents placed on record by respondents No.2 & 3 do not
support their action under judicial review. It is an action without
any legal support.
[13] In view of the above, an adverse inference is drawn
against the respondent No.2 i.e. the Regional Manager and
respondent No.3 i.e. the Branch Manager. The petitioner‟s financial
rights were violated due to the improper freezing of his account.
The respondents are directed to release the monthly pension of the
petitioner forthwith. It is also ordered that a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(fifty thousands only) as cost i.e. Rs.25,000/- each be deducted
from the salary of the concerned erred Officers i.e. respondents
No.2 & 3 and the said amount shall be deposited to the petitioner‟s
account within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. The petitioner is also at liberty to furnish the copy of this
order to the respondent-bank and claim the cost.
[14] With the above observations and directions, the instant
petition is allowed and thereby, the same is disposed of. As a
sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand
closed.
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH
GHOSH +05'30'
