Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
M A CHOWDHARY
Chuni Lal S/o Basant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that writ petition is non-maintainable for contractual obligations of a guarantor against deduction from pension (!) (!) . - It followed that once pension is credited to the pensioner’s account, it can be subjected to attachment to meet guarantor liability (Radheshyam Gupta/Mehbooba Khan line of reasoning treated as not followable here) (!) (!) . - The decision cites Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance and Kurien E. Kalathil and Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust to discuss maintainability of writs and contract vs. statutory rights (!) (!) . - The court relies on Sandeep Kumar Bafna to apply per incuriam principles for earlier judgments on pension attachments (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s challenge to pension exemption under Section 11 Pensions Act was rejected in light of contractual liability of guarantor (!) (!) (!) . - The bank was found to be within its contractual rights to deduct from petitioner’s account as guarantor (!) . - The petition was dismissed for lack of merit and non-maintainability on contractual grounds (!) .
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
Pension funds are statutorily protected from attachment for debt recovery, and unauthorized deductions violate the right to livelihood under Article 21.
The unilateral deduction of pension funds by a bank for loan recovery is unconstitutional and violates the right to livelihood, requiring legal due process.
Pension accounts are protected from attachment under relevant statutes.
The Supreme Court's guidelines in Rafiq Masih apply to all stakeholders involved in pension payment and receipt, including disbursing banks and family pensioners, ensuring equitable and just recovery....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
