news details |
|
|
| HC bars J&K Bank from deducting funds from retired guarantors pension account | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 2: In a significant judgment safeguarding the rights of pensioners, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by J&K Bank Limited seeking to overturn an appellate court’s order that restrained it from deducting funds from a retired guarantor’s pension account. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi after hearing Adv Raman Sharma for the J&K Bank whereas Adv Himanshu Beotra for the respondent, ruled that pensionary benefits, even after being deposited into a bank account, retain their exempt status under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, and Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court emphasized that such funds cannot be attached or deducted unilaterally, even under contractual agreements like deeds of guarantee.
The case arose after Chander Udey Singh, a retired individual suffering from age-related ailments, challenged the bank's action of unilaterally deducting Rs 25,000 from his pension account. Singh had stood as a guarantor for loan accounts of businesses run by his wife, which later turned into Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Despite a pending civil suit, the bank froze Singh’s pension account and began recovery, prompting him to seek court intervention.
The trial court initially dismissed Singh’s plea for interim relief, but the Principal District Judge overturned that decision and barred the bank from further deductions. The bank then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which has now been dismissed by the High Court.
In her detailed judgment, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi cited multiple precedents, including Radhey Shyam Gupta v. PNB and Farooq Ahmed Khan v. Mehmooda Khan, reiterating that pension retains its protected status even post-credit. The court also ruled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reassess evidence or replace the appellate court's discretion unless there is a manifest error or miscarriage of justice.
“The statutory protection of pension is not just a technical shield but a fundamental safeguard ensuring financial dignity for retirees,” the judgment noted. It further stated that contractual terms in deeds of guarantee cannot override the public policy embedded in statutory exemptions.
The court vacated its earlier interim order and upheld the appellate court's protection for Singh, warning that allowing banks to enforce deductions in such a manner would nullify legal protections meant for pensioners. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
