ORDER :

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents - Union Bank of India in freezing / blocking the petitioner’s Pension Bank Account bearing No.052110025053522 maintained with respondent No.1 - Union Bank of India, Saidabad Branch Office, Saidabad, Hyderabad, and attempting to adjust the amounts standing to the credit of her pension account as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri M. Ramu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondents - bank, and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a retired Government employee. She is 67 years old. Her husband expired long back. The petitioner worked as attendant in the Income Tax Department and retired from service on attaining age of superannuation in 2007. After retirement, she is solely dependent on her monthly pension amount credited to her pension account maintained with respondent No.1 bank. She is totally dependent on her bank debit card connected to her pension account. As per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, pension distributing banks have been asked to record the Pension Payment Order (PPO) number on the bank account passbook of its customers. Accordingly, the bank has mentioned her Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.00000070 on her bank pass book.

(ii) The petitioner went to her nearest bank branch on 17.02.2021 for issue of new debit card. Then she was informed by the bank executive that new card will be issued and it will be activated from 19.02.2021. She was not able to withdraw money from the ATM by using her debit card for the reason of transaction declined, unable to process and unauthorised usage. When she enquired with the bank, the petitioner was informed that her pension account is blocked by the bank which is without any information and notice to her.

(iii) It is stated that respondent No.1 bank has filed a civil suit in O.S. No.213 of 2015 for recovery of money on 28.02.2015 before the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, inter alia, contending that one of its borrowers availed loan facility of Rs.2,60,000/- on 12.04.2010 and the petitioner is one of the guarantors for the said loan. The petitioner strongly denied the suit transaction on various grounds including on the point of limitation and discrepancies in the case of the respondents - bank. The said suit was dismissed for default on 20.08.2019 as the bank did not pursue the case. The petitioner has submitted complaints dated 22.02.2021 and 24.02.2021 to the respondents - bank requesting for de-freezing her pension account.

(iv) Since no action has been taken by the bank, petitioner has issued legal notice dated 07.03.2021 and reply was issued by the bank vide notice dated 20.03.2021 through email dated 22.03.2021 admitting the fact of blocking the petitioner’s pension bank account and by asserting that it is done in exercise of its right of set-off, adjust and bankers general lien against the pension amount.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents - bank in blocking the pension account of the petitioner is in gross violation of proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871. It is further submitted that the property contemplated under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, includes pension, as such, action of the bank in depriving the petitioner of her pension amounts to violation of the constitutional rights. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 1 SCC 376, pension and gratuity amounts cannot be attached.

5. The case of the respondents - bank is that son of the petitioner Mr. Gajadi Sanjeev Kumar has availed an educational loan of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) for prosecuting M.B.A. at Wolverhampton