In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.7910 of 2008 Date of Decision:15-05-2008 Superintendent of Post Offices, M.Division, Ludhiana and another ---Petitioners vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA *** Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed by the Superintendent, Post Offices, Ludhiana under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 10.1.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana, holding that the interest which has been paid to the applicant- respondents No. 2 and 3 on the excess amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- under the Monthly Income Scheme, should not be recovered back by the petitioner C.W.P.No. 7910 of 2008 -2- because there was no fault on their part. The amount of interest has been paid to the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 up to the month of June, 2007. It is conceded position that the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 could claim the interest on the excess amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- at the rate applicable to saving account as per rule. Both of them are not entitled to interest admissible on the Monthly Income Scheme. It is appropriate to mention that under the Monthly Income Scheme, the maximum deposit in all accounts taken together should not exceed Rs. 3 lacs in a single account and Rs. 6 lacs in a joint account. The depositor is required to certify as per Rule 8 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Accounts) Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the Rules')at the time of investment in a new Monthly Income Scheme account on the account opening form that they do not exceed the prescribed limit. According to Rule 27 of the Act, the amount deposited in the account in excess of the prescribed limit has to be refunded with interest at the rate applicable to saving accounts. We have heard learned counsel at some length and find that no substantial difference is likely to result if interest up to June, 2007 at the rate admissible under the Monthly Income Scheme has been paid to the applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 because they were entitled to interest at the rate of saving account in any case. The applicant-respondents No. 2 and 3 have been held entitled to interest at the rate of saving account from July, 2007, when the notice was issued to them. The order dated 10.1.2008 (Annexure P-7) does not suffer from any inequity or unfairness and we are C.W.P.No. 7910 of 2008 -3- satisfied that the order does not warrant interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE May 15, 2008 paramjit