Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the records. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, an employee of the respondent Bank, retired on 30/11/2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was in service, he availed himself of educational loan from the respondent Bank for the purpose of his son pursuing higher studies. Though the total loan amount is Rs.2,10,000/- with a re-payment schedule of 60 months with an EMI of Rs.6708/- , there seems to have been default committed by the petitioner, thus rendering the loan an NPA.
3. Under the above circumstances, the respondent Bank has withheld the payment of terminal benefits due to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the petitioner's son has been gainfully employed and has, in fact, started repaying the loan at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is stated that this repayment was based on the directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment which was rendered in W.P.(C) No.12577/2014 filed by the petitioner's son. The factum that the petitioner's son repaying the monthly instalment has not been seriously disputed by the respondent Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner has gone on record submitting that even this month, too, in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner's son remitted the monthly instalment.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Bank has already moved the proposal with the petitioner to exercise lien over the immovable property, which the petitioner mortgaged with the respondent Bank at the time of his taking the housing loan. From Ext.P6, it is evident that the petitioner has already submitted a letter of undertaking consenting to the Bank's exercise of lien on the immovable property in question.
6. Under these circumstances, I do not see any impediment for the respondent Bank not to release the retirement benefits, which even otherwise in terms of Section 60 of the CPC cannot be made subject matter of any attachment.
7. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, this Court directs the respondent Bank to release all the retirement benefits due to the petitioner forthwith, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a month's of time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. At this juncture, it is made clear that this judgment shall not come in the way of the Bank acting on the undertaking given by the petitioner in Ext.P6 or exercising any other statutory remedy such as exercising banker's lien on any property which is under the custody of the respondent Bank.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
dpk /true copy/ P.S to Judge.