IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2628 of 2006(K)
1. AUGUSTINE DEVASSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER(P),
3. CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER,
4. CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a retiree from the Southern Railway, as Traffic
Inspector. While he was in service, he had applied for a housing loan and
it was sanctioned as Ext.P1 order dated 24.10.89. The terms of the loan
have been set forth in the annexure appended thereto. Admittedly, the
petitioner had repaid the entire amounts covered by the said loan prior to
his voluntary retirement on 30.09.03. After discharging the entire liability
arising out of the said loan transaction, the petitioner had requested the
authorities for the release of the title deeds in relation to the mortgaged
property. Despite repeated requests, no action was taken by the
respondents for that behalf and it was in the said circumstances that the
petitioner approached this court by filing the above writ petition mainly
with the prayer to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to return the title deeds
pertaining to the mortgaged property.
2. After the receipt of notice in this writ petition, Ext.R1 notice
was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ
petition was amended to assail the said demand notice as well. Ext.R1
reads thus:-
W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 2
“The Loanee insures the house with the Life
Insurance Corporation of India at his cost
immediately after the completion of the
construction for a sum, not less than the amount of
the advance against loss or change by fire. The
Policy of the Insurance should be deposited in this
office and the employee shall also pay regularly
the premium in respect of the said insurance and
will when required produce the mortgagee the
premium receipt for inspection”.
As is evident from Ext.R1, the same was issued only after 16.3.06 where as
the petitioner had retired from service voluntarily on 30.09.03. There is
absolutely no case for the respondents that while the petitioner was in
service he was issued with any such kind of notice raising any such
demand. A bare perusal of the statement filed on behalf of the respondents
in June 2006 would reveal the real intention behind the insistence for
insuring a building built by availing a loan from the respondent. The
relevant paragraph reads thus:-
“It is submitted that one of the conditions
for having availed the House Building Advance
from Railways is that the Mortgagor shall
immediately insure the house at his own cost with
the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a sum
not less than the amount of the advance and shall
keep it so insured against loss or damage by fire,
flood and lightning as provided in the said rules,
till the advance is fully repaid to the Mortgagee
and deposit the policy of insurance with the
Mortgagee……”
(emphasis supplied)
W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 3
3. A scanning of Annexure R1 in the light of the statement made
in para 4 would reveal that the insistence to insure the constructions was
made only to safeguard the interest of the railways till the repayment of the
amount availed by way of loan by the mortgagee. Admittedly, in this case,
prior to his retirement, he had repaid the entire amount due under the loan
transaction in question and no amount was outstanding as on the date of
his voluntary retirement. In view of the specific statement as extracted
above, I find no justification in the action on the part of the respondents in
demanding Rs.12,250/- towards penal rent on house building advance vide
Ext.R1. This has been issued belatedly years after the retirement of the
petitioner, that too, after the receipt of notice from this Court. It is also
evident that the employer was not put in jeopardy on account of the action
of the petitioner in not insuring the construction made by availing the loan
in question. It could have been a subject matter for disciplinary action
while he was in service. However, at this distance of time and in view of
the non-occurance of any monitary loss on account of such inaction on the
part of the petitioner no action can be brought against him. The
respondents are, therefore, bound to return the title deeds deposited by him
while availing the housing loan sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order dated
24.1.1989.
4. In the circumstances, the respondents shall release the title
W.P.(C) NO.2628 of 2006 4
deeds deposited by the petitioner at the time of availing the loan in
question, to the petitioner expeditiously at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
spc