JUDGMENT :

M A CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, claiming to be a retired Range Officer, from J&K Forest Department in the year 2018 and receiving a monthly pension of Rs.35,350/-, which is credited to his account maintained with J&K Bank Ltd, Branch Rajouri, alleged that to his surprise, without any prior notice or information to the petitioner, the respondent No.3-J&K Bank Ltd., Branch Head Janipur, Jammu, deducted an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his pension account on 28.05.2025 towards the recovery of the loan raised by Bandana Kumari & Harjeet Kumar from respondent No.3-J&K Bank Ltd. Branch Head, Janipur, Jammu, wherein the petitioner had stood as one of the guarantors on 09.10.2019 for availing Housing Loan Facility of Rs.15.00 lakhs, which was secured by registered mortgage of leasehold rights of Land and a house constructed over it.

2. It has been pleaded that respondent No.3 deducted an amount of Rs.4,64,900/- from petitioner’s pensionary Account No.0020040100012619 maintained with respondent No.4; that the petitioner was informed that loanees-Bandana Kumari & Harjeet Kumar had defaulted in regular payment of installment towards repayment of loan obtained by them, as such, the Bank decided to effect the recovery from the pension account of the petitioner.

3. It has been contended that the decision on the part of the respondents, regarding deduction from the pension account of the petitioner and freezing of the pension account by respondent No.4, the petitioner is aggrieved on the grounds that the deduction from the pension account of the petitioner towards the recovery of the loans obtained by the borrower is illegal, as pension of a retired government servant is exempt from such a recovery even if pension is credited to his pension account; that respondent No.3 & 4 had deprived the petitioner of his property without any prior notice and contrary to the principles of natural justice; and finally, it was prayed that the respondents be directed not to make any deduction from the pension account of the petitioner towards recovery of the loan obtained by Bandana Kumar and Harjeet Kumar, and direct them to credit back the amount ofRs.4,64,900/- already deducted by them from his pension account illegally to the pension account of the petitioner. Petitioner has placed on record the statement of bank, indicating the deductions made from his account, towards the repayment of the loan as pleaded in the petition.

4. Mr. Vipin Gandotra, Advocate on behalf of respondents, strongly opposed the plea raised in the petition by the petitioner, particularly, with regard to maintainability of the petition as well as the liability of the petitioner as a guarantor to liquidate the loan raised by the loanee, for whom he had stood as a guarantor.

5. With consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final consideration in view of legal issues involved in the face of admitted facts.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that any amount for the liability of the petitioner as guarantor, cannot be deducted from his pension account as the pensionary income of the petitioner is protected under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, even after it is paid to the petitioner, the same being exempt of any attachment and recovery. He has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled ‘Radhey Shyam Gupta V. Punjab National Bank & Anr.’ reported as AIR 2009 SC 930, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No. 19648/2025 titled ‘Bharat Chandra Mallick V. Branch Manager, State Bank of India’ decided on 17.10.2025 and judgments of this court in CRM(M) No.210/2020 titled ‘Farooq Ahmad Khan V. Mehbooba Khan’ decided on 11.05.2022 and in WP(C) No. 2794/2021 titled ‘Krishan Singh V. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors.’ decided on 14.08.2025, in support of his contentions.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the contention raised by t