IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(C). No. 2963 of 2004
...
Bipendra Prasad Lal ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited
2. The Director Personnel, Bharat Coking
Coal Limited, Dhanbad
3. Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (A), Bharat
Coking Limited, Dhanbad
4. The Finance Officer, South Govindpur Colliery,
Govindpur Area-III, Dhanbad
5. Area Finance Manager, Area-III, B.C.C.L.
Govindpur, Dhanbad
6. Project Officer, South Govindpur Colliery,
Govindpur Area-III, Dhanbad ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : - Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
...
5/11.02.2010
Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to refund him a sum of Rs. 58,360/- which, according to the petitioner
has been illegally deducted from the amount of the petitioner’s gratuity towards
interest on the House Building loan which the petitioner had taken earlier from the
respondents.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is sought to be explained
that under the terms of agreement executed by and between petitioner and
respondents, a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- was borrowed by the petitioner from the
respondents by way of housing loan. The principal amount together with interest was
to be repaid by the petitioner in 176 equal monthly installments spanning over a
period of 20 years. However, even before the expiry of the period, the petitioner had
opted for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the respondents on
07.12.1999. After acceptance of his voluntary retirement, the petitioner had obtained
his retiral benefits which was assessed after he had submitted the no objection
certificates from all the concerned departments. However it was later found that the
House Building loan was not cleared by the petitioner and furthermore, some
advances which the petitioner had earlier obtained, such amounts had also remained
unpaid by the petitioner prior to the date of his retirement. As such, the total
outstanding principal amount together with interest stood in the petitioner’s loan
account, was deducted from the amount of his gratuity together with the amounts
which the petitioner had obtained by way of advance but not repaid.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents refers in this context to the statement of
account annexed to the counter affidavit and submits that the apprehension of the
petitioner that certain extra amount by way of purported interest which the petitioner
was not liable to pay, has been illegally deducted from the petitioner’s gratuity
amount, is therefore misconceived.
5. From the annexures to the writ application, it appears that though the
principal amount borrowed by the petitioner has been shown as 1,86,000/-, the total
amount of interest payable by the petitioner on the principal amount was assessed as
Rs. 95,960/-. Admittedly, such amount of interest was payable by the petitioner only
if he continued to pay the installments till the 176th installment. On the contrary, it
appears that the petitioner’s loan account has been prematurely liquidated that too
unilaterally by the respondents taking advantage of the fact that the gratuity amount
of the petitioner is retained in their hands.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the terms of agreement of the
house building loan and submits that the agreement does not prohibit premature
liquidation of the loan account and neither does it impose any penalty upon the
borrower for payment of any extra amount upon premature liquidation of the loan
account. Learned counsel adds further that upon the premature liquidation of the
loan account, the respondents could at best recover the outstanding amount as shown
in the ledger, as on the date of liquidation which would have included at best, the
balance of the principal amount and the interest which had accrued on balance
amount till that date.
7. Rebuttal, if any, to these aspects of the petitioner’s case, have not been
explained by the counsel for the respondents satisfactorily.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed
of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned
authorities of the respondents and within four weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation, the respondents shall reassess the actual amount payable by the
petitioner in his house building loan account on the date when the account was
liquidated, comprising the balance on the principal amount and the amount of
interest accrued and remaining unpaid till such date and shall deduct only such
amount towards principal and interest accumulated till that date, from the gratuity
amount of the petitioner and if any amount, in excess than what was payable by the
petitioner, has been deducted, then the respondents shall refund the same to the
petitioner within four weeks from the date of reassessment.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/