P.KALAIYARASAN, J.

The instant writ appeal arises from the order, dated 01.02.2012 made in W.P.No.938 of 2011.

2. The facts in nutshell, leading to the filing of the intra court appeal are that the appellant / petitioner served in Canara Bank for about 24 years and opted voluntary retirement, due to his ill health. When he was in service, he took housing loan to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. His son, K.Srinivasa Varadhan, availed a Educational loan to the tune of Rs.98,000/-and the appellant stood as co-obligant. After retirement, he settled in Delhi. While he was in Delhi, the appellant's son took second educational loan to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, suppressing the earlier educational loan. The appellant also availed other two loans.

3. The appellant is entitled to the pension and his pension was credited to his pension Savings Bank Account. Since the appellant / petitioner as well as his son committed defaults in repayment, notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act was issued by the Bank. As far as Educational loans availed by the appellant's son are concerned, the Bank deducted the dues from the pension savings bank account of the appellant. During the period from 2005 to 2008, since the appellant did not submit life certificate, as required by the Regulations, pension amount was not credited to. When he sought information under Right to Information Act, he was informed by the Bank that an amount of Rs.1,75,809/-was deducted from his Pension account towards the educational loan obtained by his son. The appellant preferred the writ petition, questioning the deduction of the amount from the Pension account.

4. The learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition, on the grounds that the pension amount loses its character, since it is credited to the Savings Bank Account and the petitioner is also disentitled by his own conduct, to the grant of any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the second educational loan was obtained in Dilshan Garden Branch, Delhi, suppressing the earlier educational loan obtained in Chennai Tondiarpet Branch.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the Bank is not entitled to deduct the pension amount of the appellant, under proviso to Section 60 (1) CPC and that the retirement benefits including pension does not lose its character, even if it is credited to the Savings Bank Account and particularly in this case, the pension was credited into the Pension Savings Bank Account of the appellant.

6. It is further contended that the deduction from the pension account offended the Fundamental Rights to life and livelihood of the appellant, warranted under Article 21 of the Constitution. He further contends that the appellant is only a co-obligant and without initiating action against his son, who availed the educational loans, deduction from his pension account for the loan amount is also not correct.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 equally contends that the appellant, being retired employee of the Canara Bank is bound by the regulations of the Bank, as his son availed the educational loans from the very same Canara Bank and the appellant stood as co-obligant.

8. As per the Bank Regulations, the Bank shall be entitled to recover the dues to the Bank from the pension and the appellant cannot seek protection under the proviso to Section 60 (1) of CPC. The appellant has not come with clean hands. Having stood as co-obligant for the second educational loan availed by his son, suppressing the first educational loan, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have examined the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

10. Concededly, the son of the appellant took two educational loans in Canara Bank, one to the tune of Rs.98,000/-in Chennai Tondiarpet Branch in the year 1999 and another to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-in Dilshan Garden Branch, Delhi in the year 2001 and