S. Vimala, J.

Gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property."

- the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State Of Jharkhand & Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr, decided on 14th August, 2013.

1.1. Pending investigation into the criminal complaint against the petitioner, the accounts of the petitioner has been frozen. This is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Cash Officer in the third respondent Bank from 1977 to 2013 and retired on 30.03.2013. The petitioner was regularly getting pension through Pension Account No. 10747869002, in the State Bank of India, Manamadurai Branch, from the date of his retirement.

3. Two years after the retirement, one Fathima, working as Branch Manager, in the third respondent Branch, gave a complaint against the petitioner and two others, stating that one Mr. Shanmugam has received a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- as agricultural loan, from Parthibanoor Branch of the State Bank of India, by mortgaging imitation gold jewellery. This has allegedly happened with the assistance of the petitioner and another Cash Officer, by name, Kavitha. In respect of the same, a First Information Report has been registered.

4. The pension account of the petitioner has been frozen by the third respondent without any intimation or notice to the petitioner. When the petitioner wanted to know the reason, the fourth respondent Bank has informed that a Criminal Case is pending against the petitioner and till the disposal of the case, the petitioner would not be permitted to withdraw the pension amount. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner, till the petitioner is convicted by the Criminal Court and therefore, the third respondent has no right to freeze the pension account of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been filed seeking direction against the respondents to unfreeze the pension account of the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to withdraw the pension.

5. The claim made by the petitioner is opposed by the third respondent Bank on the ground that the freezing of the account of the petitioner is justified, as the petitioner has caused loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs.3,70,000/- over which the Bank has exercised lien over the credit lying to the account of the petitioner.

5.1. The characteristics of the pension vanish, once the amount is credited in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not correct to describe the amount lying in deposit in the account of the petitioner, as pension amount.

5.2. The loss is stated to have been caused on account of the misconduct of the petitioner; during the course of employment, the petitioner appraised the jewels of Mr. S.R. Shanmugam and took documentation on 15.06.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-; likewise, the petitioner herein appraised the jewels of Mr. S.R. Shanmugam and took documentation on 16.04.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, thus, the public money was lent against the pledging of jewels by S.R. Shanmugam, through the petitioner; the loan amount was not paid; therefore, the Bank decided to sell the jewels; when reappraisal was done before auction, it was found that the pledged jewels were spurious jewels; hence, the answering respondents/Bank, lodged a complaint which has been registered in Crime No. 24 of 2015. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable, especially, in a writ petition, when there is no public law element is involved.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No. 24 of 2015 under Section 420 IPC, later altered into one under Sections 409, 420 and 120B IPC.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pension as such is not liable to be attached and especially without notice to the petitioner and hence, th