IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5568 of 2011 Mahendra Ram son of Late Madhuri Ram, resident of Village Arariya, Ward No.5, P.S. Arariya …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank Of India through the C.J.M. State Bank of India, Local Head Office at Patna 2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Purnea 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, at Arariya 4. Authorized officer, State Bank of India, Region-III, Purnea, P.O. + P.S. Purnea …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary & :Mr. Vishambhar Prasad For S.B.I. :Mr. Kaushlendra Kr. Sinha ----------- 9. 04.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-State Bank of India (for short ‘the Bank’). Petitioner is a dismissed employee of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the notice issued under section 13(2) read with Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules, 2002 as contained in Annexure-1. By the said notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs. 11, 89,327.61 + interest within 60 days from the date of receipt thereof. It is admitted position that while in service the petitioner was advanced certain loan(s) including housing loan. In a departmental proceeding , the petitioner was dismissed from service. The Bank was thus required to realize the loan amount paid to and received by the petitioner. Since he defaulted in making payments thereof, the aforesaid recourse was taken by the Bank which has been impugned. The matter was taken up on 31.3.2011 when it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner owes payment of post 2 retirement benefits from the Bank and if the said amount is/are paid the same would satisfy the demand made under Annexure-1. In the light of the said stand taken by the petitioner, the Respondent-Bank has filed counter affidavit to which the petitioner has filed rejoinder. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank, it has been stated that even on repeated notices of the Bank the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount and as such the Bank issued notice on petitioner under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon him to pay the amount within a time-frame. The Respondent-Bank, in the meanwhile, calculated the gratuity benefits payable to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.1,00,290/-. Similarly, under the head CPF a sum of Rs. 3,53,523/- was found payable to the petitioner. The respondents have enclosed calculation chart along with counter affidavit. It is contended that even after adjustment of the amount payable to the petitioner under aforesaid two heads, the petitioner is still liable to pay the remaining amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation of amount of gratuity found payable to the petitioner is incorrect since the same has been calculated on the basis of the old pay scale whereas the petitioner was promoted to the Junior Manager Grade 1 Scale way back in 1989. It is next contended that the amount of CPF found payable as per the calculation enclosed with the counter affidavit appears to be incorrect. It is contended that according to his calculation, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4, 34,778 under the said head. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a fair stand that petitioner is obliged to pay back the loan amount but the 3 calculation made by the Respondent-Bank showing his entitlement under the two heads are incorrect. It is thus contended that the Respondent-Bank should re-calculate the amount payable to the petitioner under the heads of gratuity as well as CPF. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank, on the other hand, drew attention of the Court to the calculation chart attached with counter affidavit in order to satisfy that the calculations have been correctly made by the Respondent-Bank under both heads treating the petitioner as a dismissed employee of the Bank. On going through pleadings on record and after hearing the patties, it appears that the liability of the petitioner to pay back the loan amount under different heads has not been denied. What has been objected to is the calculation made by the Bank for payment of his post retirement benefits after dismissal from service under the heads gratuity and CPF. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Respondent-Bank by filing a detailed representation with regard to the calculation made by the Respondent-Bank(attached with counter affidavit). If any such representation is filed within a fortnight from today, the Respondent-Bank shall consider and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. By order dated 31.3.2011, this Court granted stay in the following terms:- “In the meantime, no further steps shall be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.” 4 In the interest of justice, this Court deems it apposite that the aforesaid interim order shall remain operative for four weeks from today enabling the petitioner to file his representation questioning the correctness of the calculation made by the Respondent-Bank and consideration thereof in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that on expiry of four weeks from today, the Respondent-Bank will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as if there is no interim order by this Court. When the order was dictated Mr. Vishambhar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner may be allowed to pay back the remaining amount in instalments. This Court would permit the petitioner to approach the Respondent-Bank separately for the said relief. The application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )