JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same and therefore they are taken up together. The grievance is also the same and relating to the same set of events. 2. With the, consent of the parties, these applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. 3. Petitioner had taken on different dates two term loans from the respondent-State Bank of India, Bhagalpur Branch. They were on different terms and conditions granted on different dates for different amounts. 4. It is not in dispute that for various reasons, which are not necessary to be noted, both these accounts became non- performing assets (NPA) on different dates. 5. Under the directive of Reserve Bank of India, State Bank of India came up with the Scheme for "One Time Settlement" for NPA of Small & Medium Enterprises. The coverage of the Scheme is notified as follows: "1. Coverage: 1.1. All NPAs in the SME sector, classified as doubtful or loss on or before 31st March, 2009, with outstanding balance of Rs. 25 lacs, and below on the date on which the account was classified as doubtful." 6. The two writ applications are in respect of two term loans. Petitioner made an application for settlement of both these NPA accounts separately. The same has been turned down on the ground that if the total outstanding in both the accounts put together, they exceed Rs. 25 lacs and as such is beyond the coverage area and the scheme, which is otherwise non-discriminatory and non-discretionary could not apply. It is the correctness of this stand that is in question. 7. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that for the Bank, it is an unit that is under consideration and therefore, it was clarified that unit is the identity for settlement and not the accounts. 8. Having heard the parties and having considered the matter, in my view, both the writ applications must succeed. 9. As apparent from the coverage clause of the Scheme, it applies to NPA i.e. non-performing assets. Respondent- Bank do not dispute that each of the loan accounts are distinct non-performing assets. If we go to different parts of the Scheme, it would be seen that right to preferences to non-performing assets. Thus, in my view, each individual account is a non-performing assets individually. Respondent- Bank do not dispute that each of the loan accounts are distinct non-performing assets. If we go to different parts of the Scheme, it would be seen that right to preferences to non-performing assets. Thus, in my view, each individual account is a non-performing assets individually. Thus, different accounts of a single concern cannot be clubbed up to deny the benefits of the scheme. I may try an illustration to this. If unit is an unit of settlement and it has two accounts, one NPA and other not, then if the unit accounts are to be settled under the scheme, then even performing assets account with non-performing assets will have to be settled. That surely is not the scheme. Accounts have to be settled individually. Thus, found, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to settlement under the said scheme and cannot be denied the benefits of the said scheme on the ground that all her different and distinct accounts if clubbed would disqualify her from getting the benefits. 10. As the petitioner had applied well within the time of the scheme though expired on 31st March, 2010, in view of the facts aforesaid, petitioner would be entitled to avail of the benefits under that scheme as if it has not expired or it cannot avail of benefits under any other scheme, which is involved at present as per his (sicher ?) choice. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.