IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26637 of 1999 Between: E.Ramachender Rao S/o Late Sri:E.Ramakrishna Rao (Hindu) Syndicate Bank, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. R/o Plot No:134/1, Saptagiri Colony, P.O: Sainikkpuri, R.K.Puram, Secunderabad-500 594. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy.General Manager Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. 2 The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, Hyderabad-29. 3 The Chief Manager Syndicate Bank, Staff Welfare Division, EPF Cell, Post Box No:1, Head Office, MANIPAL-576 119. 4 The Divisional Manager & Now Regional Manager Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, (City), Zonal Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. 5 The Branch Manager Syndicate Bank, Bhiknur Branch, Domakonda Taluq, Nizamabad Dist-503 101. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus direct the 2nd Respondent to refund the terminal benefits of the petitioner adjusted towards the liabilities of his brothers in contrary to this Hon'ble High Court directions passed in W.P.No:3071 of 1997 with upto date of interest by treating the actions of the 2,3,5 respondents as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rules and directions of this Hon'ble Court and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: MR.D.GOPALA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to refund the terminal benefits of the petitioner adjusted towards the liabilities of his brothers contrary to the order passed in W.P.No.3071 of 1997. The petitioner was an employee of Syndicate bank. He contracted several loans from the bank individually and also jointly along with his brothers. He applied for permission for voluntary retirement on 11.05.1996. By letter dated 26.06.1996, respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to explain how the liabilities standing in his name will be met. Thereupon, the petitioner wrote letter, dated 11.12.1996 wherein he informed respondent No.1 that all the direct and indirect liabilities may be recovered from his terminal benefits. As no decision on the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement was taken by the respondents, he filed W.P.No.3071 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.03.1997, wherein this Court observed that it appears from the material available on record that out of the liabilities of Rs.1,15,441/-, SF A/c 1/93 pertains to the brother of the petitioner, which was treated as petitioner’s liability. Following the said observations, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case afresh after excluding the liability of the petitioner’s brother and consider the petitioner’s liability alone and take a decision on his voluntary retirement. Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was relieved from the service of the bank with effect from 17.06.1997. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the action of the bank in adjusting the amount of Rs.1,56,835.94 paise towards the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is not personally liable to pay the said sum as the said sum represents the loan contracted by his brother. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant General Manager of the Syndicate Bank, it is stated that three loan accounts, namely, SF 2/93, SF 3/93 and SF 4/93 for Rs.84,758.94 paise, Rs.65,637/- and Rs.6440/- respectively stand in the name of the petitioner himself and therefore, the said amounts were adjusted towards terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. The answering respondent also relied on letter, dated 11.12.1996 written by the petitioner while requesting for voluntary retirement, wherein he gave consent for adjustment of liability standing in his name from out of his terminal benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if certain loan amounts were outstanding against the petitioner, they were subject matter of civil suits and the same cannot be adjusted towards terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has agreed for such adjustment as a condition for accepting for voluntary retirement is not in dispute. Further, the order of this Court referred to above, whereunder the bank was permitted to adjust the liability standing in the name of the petitioner, has become final. It is in pursuance of the petitioner’s letter and the order of this Court that the respondents have adjusted the said sum towards the terminal benefits due and payable to the petitioner. In my considered view, the respondents have not committed any illegality in adjusting the liabilities standing in the name of the petitioner towards the terminal benefits payable to him. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.12.2008 va