IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2351 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13144/2004 Dated 04/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. K.GIRIJA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O C.PRABHAKARAN, PLOT NO.II, SREESAILEM, RAIL NAGAR, OLAVAKKOT P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.RUGMINI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O PRABHAKARAN, PLOT NO.11, SREESAILEM, RAIL NAGAR, OLAVAKKOT P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, OLAVAKKOT BRANCH. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1,2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009 ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 2357/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & M.C. HARI RANI,J ============================== W.A.Nos. 2351 & 2357 OF 2007 ============================ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy,Ag.C.J. The appellant in W.A.No.2357/2007, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C).37548/2001, retired from service of the first respondent Bank under voluntary retirement scheme,Ext.P1. She was given benefits as per Ext.P1. Her balance privilege leave was also encashed. Clause 6(d) of the scheme provides encashment of balance of privilege leave as applicable on the relevant date. Only those persons, who are entitled to pension, are entitled to get leave encashment benefits as per Ext.R2(a). But the petitioner was paid leave encashment benefits. On realising that she was not eligible for the same, the Bank has issued a communication on 1-12-20001 to recover the same. It is true that privilege leave encashment was given to her wrongly and it has to be recovered as it is, otherwise it will amount to unjust enrichment. Hence, the Bank can recover the amount wrongly paid to the petitioner. 2. It was contended that the Bank has taken steps to recover W.A.NOS.2351 & 2357/2007 -2- the amount from the fixed deposits of the petitioner and her mother's name. It is submitted that there was no lien for the Bank to recover the amount on the deposit made in the F.D. The learned single Judge held that since the amounts are due from the petitioner, even if there is no lien, it need not be interfered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy under Article 226 is an extra ordinary relief granted at the discretion of the court. The amount she received was put in the fixed deposit with her and her mother's name. Steps taken by the Bank to recover the amount from the above fixed deposit need not be interfered in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only direction that can be given is that if the petitioner pays the amount demanded within three months, the deposit can be kept in tact . No other relief can be given. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.Chief Justice M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks. W.A.NOS.2351 & 2357/2007 -3-