IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12086 of 2002 AMBIKA SINGH son of Shri Banke Bihari Singh, resident of South Indira Nagar, Road no.7, P.O. Postal Park, P.S. Jakkanpur, Patna-800001, retired Staff Officer, The Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited,Patna 4. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Co- operation , Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna. 2. The Administrator-cum-Managing Director, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, Ashok Raj Path, Patna-4. 3. Shri Vijay Narain Sharma, officiating Deputy General Manager, Personnel & Administration, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ashok Rajpath, Patna-4. 4. Shri Jai Bharat Singh, officiating Deputy General Manager,Finance ( Non- Farm), the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, Ashok Rajpath, Patna- 4. 5. The Branch Manager, New Secretariat Branch, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited,Patna. 6. Sri Suresh Sharma c/o Sri Ram Pravesh Sharma, 309, MIG, Kankarbagh Colony,Kankarbagh,Patna-20. Present Address: Sri Suresh Sharma, B-86, Housing Colony,Kankarbagh,Near Panch Mandir,Kankarbagh,Patna-20. ----------- 9 7.11.2008 The petitioner retired from the Bihar State Co-operative Bank. From the gratuity payable to him, a deduction of about Rs. 37,000/- was made. The ground for such a deduction was that the petitioner along with another had stood guarantors for an over draft of Rs. 3,000/- granted to respondent no.6 in the year 1977, which over draft of Rs. 3,000/- increased to about Rs. 37,000/- by interest accumulation in the past 30 years. No step was taken to realize the due or enforce for payment against principal debtor for 35 years. It is submitted that under Payment of Gratuity Act, such a deduction is wholly unauthorized. Respondent no.6 has noticed and has appeared. He stated that in the year 2002 itself he had made an application for One - 2 - Time Settlement to the Co-operative Bank, which remained pending. Learned counsel for the Bank has stated that the application of respondent no.6 could not be considered as by then the Bank had realized the entire amount from the petitioner and there was nothing to be settled. It appears, subsequently Bank refunded the petitioner half of the amount on the ground that there were two guarantors and as such petitioner would only be liable to half of the amount. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of. In my view, Bank’s action in making deduction from the gratuity of the petitioner cannot be sustained on two grounds. Firstly, attachment or deduction from gratuity is impermissible in law. Secondly, Bank trying to enforce a guarantee after 35 years and that too even without action against the principal debtor at any time. The claim was barred by limitation. They could not have enforced the same after such a long period. However, as respondent no.6 has appeared and has stated that he had filed an application for One Time Settlement in the year 2002, in fairness Bank should now be given a liberty to proceed on that application expeditiously but irrespective of the result thereof, the action of the Bank in retaining the amount of Rs. 18,625/- of the petitioner cannot be upheld. Thus, while directing the Bank to proceed with One Time Settlement application of respondent no.6 in accordance with law and in accordance with the Scheme existing then, I direct that the money still retained by the - 3 - Bank from the gratuity of the petitioner would be refunded to the petitioner within one month from the date of filing of copy of this order before the Managing Director of the concerned Co-operative Bank. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)