Pension funds are statutorily protected from attachment for debt recovery, and unauthorized deductions violate the right to livelihood under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of Respondent-Bank by which the Respondent-Bank has deducted the amount from Saving Bank Account of the petitioner bearing Account No.51012200000396, on which the petitioner was receiving pension amount from the government, for recovery of agricultural loan obtained by the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was serving as a teacher. He retired in the month of December 2008 and started receiving pension from the State Government. He would further contend that the petitioner has obtained a crop loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2014 from the Respondent-Bank against which the Respondent-Bank has already created a charge on his agricultural land bearing Gut No.93. The Respondent-Bank instead of resorting to the other remedies available in law has started deducting the amount from the saving account of the petitioner and in fact has already deducted the amounts from the said saving account on 22.12.2022, 10.03.2023 and 04.04.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said deduction from the amount of pension is not permissible in view of Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 as well as Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore urged that the Respondent/Bank be restrained from recovering amount of crop loan from the pension amount received by the petitioner and that the Respondent/Bank be directed to refund the amount already deducted with interest.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank vehemently oppose the Writ Petition mainly assailing the conduct of the petitioner of suppression of material fact. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Bank submits that the petitioner has not disclosed that beside crop loan of Rs.2,00,000/- the petitioner and his son have also availed the loan for Floriculture and Polyhouse from the Respondent- Bank and has withheld the said information and therefore would urge that on count of suppression of material fact the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for Respondent-Bank. So far as contention of learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank that the petitioner has withheld the fact of availing two other loans from this Court and therefore the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on count of suppression of material fact is concerned, it would not be out of place to mention that this court by passing an elaborate order on 08.08.2024 has permitted the petitioner to amend Writ Petition to the extend of disclosing other two loan accounts subject to petitioner depositing cost of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner has accordingly amended the Writ Petition and has disclosed the said two loan accounts. We, therefore, are of the view that these technical objections will not foreclose the relief claimed by the petitioner in the light of what we propose to decide in later part of this judgment.

7. The question now that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Respondent-Bank is justified in deducting the pension amount of the petitioner for realization of the outstanding loan as claimed by Respondent-Bank. While considering the said issue it woul