The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.435 of 2022 Anuja Jena …. Petitioner -versus- Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai and Ors. …. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in the case: For Petitioner : Mr. Satyabrata, Mohanty, Adv. Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. A.K.Jena, Adv. Mr. A.P.Rath, Adv. Mr. M.Kumar, Adv. For Opp. Parties -versus- : Mr.P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. (for O.P.No.2) Mr. D.Mund, AGA (for O.P.No.3) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-31.10.2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-23.12.2022 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the highhanded and arbitrary action of the opposite party i.e. the State Bank of India for freezing her pension account without assigning the reason or any pre intimation. 1 of 10
Legal Reasoning
I. Facts of the Case 2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable under the CRPF on 20.01.1994 through due process of selection. After successful continuance of her service career, she was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2010 and continued as such in different states of India with due diligence. After completion of her 20 years of service with utmost sincerity, due to her ill health, she applied for VRS which was duly considered by the authority and allowed the VRS on 31.03.2015. Accordingly, all her post retiral benefits along with other legal entitlements were also disbursed in her favour in her account in the State Bank of India, Dwaraka Branch Delhi. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner shifted to her native place in Odisha along with the family members and residing at Cuttack as her children are pursuing their study. Since 2015 onwards, she was drawing her monthly pension from Bank through ATM card and all of a sudden her pension account was stopped in the month of May, 2021 by the SBI. On query, the Bank Authority had advised to submit KYC along with other documents to continue the transaction but latter on the same could not be materialized by the Bank and after waiting for quite a long period, the petitioner submitted representation and subsequently issued legal notice on 06.11.2021 for payment of her regular pension which has been 2 of 10 credited in the pension Account by the employer. Finally, in response to the legal notice dated 06.11.2021, the Branch Manager, SBI, Dwarka Branch, New Delhi responded and sent a letter along with a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. issued by the Sub-Inspector, Dwarka Police Station, South, New Delhi for production of certain documents and freezing of the pension account with a footnote that non-compliance of the above documents amounts to an offence under Section 175 of I.P.C. After receiving such notice, the Bank authority put petitioner’s pension account on hold. Being aggrieved by such highhanded action of the bank authority, the petitioner filed the above mentioned writ petition for release of pensionary benefit by defreezing the Account to save the family from starvation. II. Submissions Of The Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when in no such proceeding the petitioner has been found guilty or any order to that effect is available, the police by issuing a notice under Section 91 to the Bank Manager the Account of pension should not have been frozen which is definitely a harassment and clear case of violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Before any finding of any court, the Bank authority should not withhold the pension by freezing the pension Page 3 of 10 account which is beyond the scope and ambit of the law, hence, and deserves kind consideration. Be that as it may, the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to pass an order to add Dwaraka P.S. as a party for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the authority to substantiate its article and threat regarding freezing the petitioner’s Account and allow to file the consolidated cause title. Besides that, the Bank also decided to disburse the pension deposited for the time being for withdrawal of the amount. While the matter stood thus, the Bank authority did not release the pension for which on 10.10.2022 the opposite party Bank was directed to accept the withdrawal slip and disburse the pension at main Branch, Cuttack by opening an Account. Accordingly, the Bank has disbursed the pension for the month of September, 2022. III. Counter Submission Of Opposite Party 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sector-12 Dwaraka Branch submits that while filing such writ petition, the petitioner has not added necessary party. Further, since the pension account having been opened at New Delhi and necessary papers to that effect are at New Delhi, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court is not maintainable, hence the said writ petition should be rejected on the ground of jurisdictional 4 of 10 point. It is further submitted that on receipt of notice, in the first instance was intimated by the concerned officer over the registered mobile number to the petition and thereafter immediately the said account was kept on hold. Such an act as has been done, cannot be turned as illegal, arbitrary and highhandedness action by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Bank has truly complied with the said notice by putting the account on hold with regard to withdrawals. Hence, based on such grounds, the writ petition should be rejected. 5. In order to rebut the submissions of the Opposite Party, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner along with her family residing at Odisha since 2015 onwards and also withdrawing her pension at Odisha and the part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Odisha. In this respect, the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Devi @ Shanti Mishra vs. UOI1, wherein His Lordship has decided that in 226(2) of the Constitution of India-territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court could be attracted. Even if part of the cause of action arises within the State of Odisha, the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The principle of Forum convenience while deciding the 1(2020) 10 SCC 766 Page 5 of 10 said aspect, the Supreme Court have also taken care of the judgment of Kusum Ingots alloys Ltd. vs. UOI2, wherein the Apex Court has decided the meaning of “cause of action” in Para-6 and reiterated that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will have jurisdiction in the matter. In Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. UOI,3the Apex Court have decided that the High Court has got the ample jurisdiction clarifying the expression of cause of action and in plain reading of clause-2 of Article 226, it is manifestly clear that the High Court can exercise power to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. If the cause of action in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding that the site of the Government or the Authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction/order, or writ issued is not within the said territory. It is needless to submit here that in the case of Shanti Devi cited supra it has been held that the High Court has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same as the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction. In the instant case, so far as the release of pension is concerned, it is coming within the purview of this Court and it has got the