Point of Law : Merely because the Bank apprehends an action from the part of the third respondent, the Bank is not entitled to insist that the Fixed Deposit should remain as a lien in favour of the Bank.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No. 14581 of 2019 have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 23rd February, 2021, whereby the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellants to release the Fixed Deposit amount retained by the 1st appellant Bank to the first respondent/writ petitioner on his demand. It was also made clear that the appellants would be at liberty to insist for an indemnity bond executed by the writ petitioner as a condition for releasing the Fixed Deposit.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The first respondent/writ petitioner was a Manager of the first appellant Bank. He took voluntary retirement in accordance with the voluntary retirement scheme floated by the Bank and he was relieved from service on 09.07.2018. According to the writ petitioner, the Provident Fund and the Pension Fund Department of the Punjab National Bank issued a Pension Payment Order as per Ext. P1.

3. According to the writ petitioner, when he approached the first appellant Bank for releasing the pension amount, the Circle Head of the Bank-second appellant, as per his communication dated 06.07.2018, directed the writ petitioner that an amount of Rs. 3,96,601/-shall have to be retained in the Bank in the form of Fixed Deposit with a lien marked in favour of the Bank, in connection with the execution of an attachment order issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Kozhikode under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('EPF Act, 1952' for short) directing the first appellant to recover a total amount of Rs.3,96,601/-, being the arrears due to be paid by the third respondent in the appeal namely one P. Aboo, Proprietor, PG Medical Trust Hospital, Nilambur, towards contribution of Employees Provident Fund, evident from Exhibit P2 .

4. On the basis of Ext. P2 order, the sanctioned pensionary benefits was disbursed only on condition of the writ petitioner agreeing to deposit an amount of Rs.3,96,601/-as Fixed Deposit with a lien marked in favour of the first appellant Bank so as to retain it as a security for the Bank in the event of making payment to the 3rd respondent, for having deducted the amount from the cash credit account maintained by the 3rd respondent with the Bank.

5. The case projected by the writ petitioner was that the 3rd respondent had been sanctioned a working capital limit of Rs.25,00,000/-by the first appellant Bank for the purpose of utilising the same for the day-to-day business of the hospital.

6. It was while so, when the writ petitioner was working as the Manager in the first appellant Bank, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued two notices dated 17.08.2017 under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952 directing to recover and pay the aforesaid amount, evident from Exts.P3 and P4 notices.

7. Therefore, the case projected by the writ petitioner is that he had no other option than to recover the amount as per the directions contained in Exts.P3 and P4, exercising the power conferred on the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 8F of the EPF Act, 1952. The sum and substance of the contentions put forth is that there was no negligence or omission on the part of the writ petitioner in recovering the amount as per the directions issued by the statutory authority under the EPF Act, 1952 and therefore, the Bank is not entitled to retain the amount in the guise of an apprehended future action from the part of the third respondent, marking lien against the Fixed Deposit.

8. Whatever that be, in the embroiled circumstances, the writ petitioner has addressed Ext. P5 communication dated 05.04.2018 to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kozhikode to refund the amount; but, on receipt of Ext. P5, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner sent a communication dated 07.09.2018 to the Chief Manager of the first appellant Bank, with copy to the wri