1 CA7750/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7750 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 365 OF 2009 Nazmunissa w/o Abdul Razzak Shaikh, Age 60 years, Occupation Household, Resident of Osmanabad, Taluka and District Osmanabad, At Present Panchayat Samiti Quarter No. 7, C/o Shaikh M.R. Extension Officer (Health), Ausa, District Latur Applicant V E R S U S 1 Sardarbee d/o Gausoddin Shaikh, Age 65 years, Occupation Household, Resident of Dattanagar, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur Respondent 2 Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Osmanabad Shri S.A. G. Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant Shri Ruturaj C. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17th October, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Second Appeal No. 365 of 2009 was filed by Sardarbee w/o Abdul Razzak Shaikh (the respondent No.2 here but shall be referred as per her name) against one Nazmunnisa w/o Abdul Razzak Shaikh (the applicant here but shall be referred to as her name.) Both were claiming that they were legally wedded wives of Abdul Razzak. Abdul Razzak was an employee of Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad and he attained superannuation in due course. After his retirement, he started getting pension. He made a declaration with his employer that after his death Nazmunnisa should get his family pension being his wife. Abdul Razzak died in 2002, and as per his nomination, Nazmunnisa started getting pension. In 2006, Sardarbee moved an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the Civil Court of Nilanga, District Latur making Nazmunnisa as party to such 2 CA7750/2010 proceedings. She obtained Succession Certificate on 15th April, 2006, saying that she, Nazmunnisa and others were legal heirs of Abdul Razzak. 2. Being aggrieved of issuance of Succession Certificate, Nazmunnisa filed appeal before the District Court, Nilanga and succeeded in getting Succession Certificate cancelled. 3. Thereafter, Sardarbee filed Second Appeal No. 365 of 2009, and during pendency of this appeal, on 18th February, 2010, she made an application to the Branch Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Osmanabad saying that since her second appeal is pending before the High Court, bank should not continue payment of pension to Nazmunnisa. She said that the High Court, during the pendency of her appeal, stayed the effect of allowing of the appeal in favour of Nazmunnisa. She also said in the application that if such payment is made, the Branch Manager would be responsible for committing contempt of court etc. The Branch Manager, it seems, did not take any legal advice before taking steps in the matter, but he abruptly stopped payment of pension to Nazmunnisa. I was not aware of this fact, but during course of arguments on the appeal, I learnt this from the learned counsel appearing for Nazmunnisa. Therefore, I issued show- cause-notice to the above mentioned Branch Manager and asked him to submit his explanation, as to why he had stopped the payment of pension to Nazmunnisa. In reply he has filed his affidavit justifying his action. 4. It is clear from the above narration that this Court had not passed any order preventing Nazmunnisa from receiving the payment of pension. This was never an issue between the parties in the appeal. There was no order 3 CA7750/2010 passed by this Court in the appeal directing the Branch Manager not to effect payment of pension to Nazmunnisa. Despite of this clear position, the Branch Manager of the Bank in his affidavit stated that after he received the letter of Sardarbee on 18th February, 2010, as per practice, he decided to stop payment of family pension to Nazmunnisa. He further said that it is practice of the bank, when two persons claim same legal right, the bank stops such transaction. He further mentioned in justification of his action that since bank cannot decide legal status or right of the contesting parties, the simplest mode available to the bank for avoiding further allegations from the parties against the bank officer, is stopping transaction till final decision of the Court. This justification by no stretch of imagination would absolve the bank from the irresponsible act committed by the manager and its repercussions. The course of action available to the Branch Manager was different. He received the information regarding dispute between these two persons over family pension first time on 18th February, 2010. He also learnt from the application that there is a second appeal proceeding pending before the High Court. He could have then referred this case for legal advice to the banks legal advisor, and only after such legal advice is received, he ought to have acted accordingly. He apparently had no authority to stop the payment of pension. It must be noted that Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad was making payment of this pension. The State Bank of Hyderabad was merely a conduit. The Branch Manager could have referred this matter to the Panchayat Samiti on whose direction the payment was made. On receiving their express order, he could have taken suitable steps. Admittedly, he never referred this case to Panchayat Samiti nor he referred this case to legal advisor of the bank for obtaining appropriate order from this Court in the second appeal. In view of this, the Branch Manager of 4 CA7750/2010 this bank had committed grave error which could be an of tort in stopping the payment of pension. In my view, the bank should compensate Nazmunnisa for depriving her from receiving the pension from last March, 2010. 5. The learned counsel appearing for Nazmunnisa now tells this Court that even after the appeal filed by Sardarbee was dismissed and even though the Branch Manager is informed about this, he has not started disbursing the family pension to Nazmunnisa. I am not dealing with this subsequent act, because no notice in that respect was issued to the Branch Manager. This question is therefore kept away from this order. But, I think, Nazmunnisa can certainly file appropriate proceeding for compensation etc against the Bank, and if such an application is made, the question of negligence etc on the part of the Branch Manager can be decided on merits without getting influenced of this order. But, I think, since I have reached my conclusion after hearing the Branch Manager, I think I should direct the Bank/bank manager to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) as compensation to Nazmunnisa. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Branch Manager of State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Osmanabad requested this Court not to impose any compensation on his client. He said, his client was under bona fide belief that his action was justifiable. He said that he honestly believed that he could stop the payment of pension etc. I am afraid, this argument is not available to the Branch Manager, because, as said above, he was directed to pay the pension to Nazmunnisa by the employer (Panchayat Samiti Osmanabad) and so he had no independent power to disregard and disobey such direction. 5 CA7750/2010 7. The Bank or the Bank Manager shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to Nazamunnisa on or before 4th November, 2011. In view of above, Civil Application stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ca/7750/10/17/10/11ok