IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11353 of 2008 Wakil Chandra Das, son of Late Sepahi Das, Resident of Mukhria, P.O. Khutaha, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur. ……… Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 2. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur. 3. Assistant General Manager, Region I,State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur. 4. Incharge (N.P.A. & Recovery ) State Bank of India, Regional Office, Region I, State Bank of India, Bhagalpur. 5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Tatarpur Branch at Bhagalpur. …….. Respondents. ----------- 06 22.01.2009 The petitioner is a constable in the Bihar Police service and took a personal housing loan of Rs. 3,75,000/-, which was disbursed in February 2003. Pursuant to agreement dated 13.02.2003, the repayment was to be made on equated monthly instalment of Rs. 4500/-. The repayment was to start two months after completion of construction or after 18 months from the disbursement of his first instalment, whichever was earlier or from December 2003, as per the repayment schedule under the agreement. Petitioner would prima facie thus be liable to start repayment from December 2003. Accounts are Annexure- A to the counter affidavit. It clearly shows that in December petitioner deposited Rs. 3000/- thereafter he defaulted for five months and started deposit from January 2004 onwards, but not of the amount of EMI. Now, it is stated on behalf of respondent-bank that petitioner being in service is to retire in three years i.e. by 2011, bank considers him to be unsafe in investment. Bank insists and considers it should liquidate the entire amount in three years. Prima face, I am not impressed because the date of retirement was known to the bank when initial instalment were 2 fixed. The total number of monthly instalment which the petitioner is required to pay is Rs. 120/- (10 years), which would mean it would finish in the year 2014 i.e. three years after his retirement. Considering all the aforesaid and balancing the equity, I direct that petitioner would start paying equated monthly instalment of Rs. 5,500/- per month in stead of 4,500/- per month beginning from first week of February 2009. This amount of Rs. 5,500/- per month would be paid accordingly up to February 2011, petitioner would be intimated the balance outstanding which the petitioner would then liquidate within six months. This is being so ordered because this period coincides with the date of superannuation of petitioner, he would be entitled to receive substantial amount as retirement benefits. Petitioner would transfer his salary account to local State Bank of India branch, where salary payments are made to him and the concerned State Bank of India would be under obligation to make the aforesaid deduction and remitted to the loan account aforesaid. In case, petitioner salary account is with any other bank and it is not possible to transfer the said account in designated branch of State Bank of India then that bank on intimation by the State Bank of India would be obliged to carry out the direction of this Court. The petitioner agrees to the said terms in view of the aforesaid agreement between the parties. The possession of the house should be restored with the petitioner forthwith and both parties would act accordingly. This disposes of the writ petition itself. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)