Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 430 (JK)

Soma Devi v. Union of India and ors.

2011-08-24

J.P.SINGH

body2011
1. The petitioner deposited money with Sub Post Master, Bishnah under the Monthly Income Scheme, which entitled her to interest @ 13% per annum. The petitioner's money thus invested remained in deposit with the Postal Authorities, who continued reflecting interest payable thereon, in the entries made to this effect, in the Pass Book issued by the Authorities to the petitioner. 2. The deposits made by the petitioner were later found not covered by the rules, in that, the Scheme under which the money was deposited would not permit the depositors to make deposits exceeding Rs.2.04 lac in single account and Rs.4.08 lac in joint accounts. The accounts were, therefore, closed and the amount paid by way of interest, on the deposits, ordered to be recovered. 3. After closure of the Scheme, the petitioner received her money back but without any interest. 4. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for a Command to the Postal Authorities to pay her interest on the money which remained in deposit with them, at the rate it was promised and agreed to. 5. Union-respondents contest the petitioner's Claim to interest urging that having deposited money in violation of the Scheme, which would not permit deposits more than the prescribed limit, the petitioner was not entitled to interest on the amount, which remained in deposit with them. 6. It was not disputed that the amount deposited by the petitioner in various accounts under the Monthly Income Scheme exceeded the limits prescribed for single as well as joint accounts. 7. During the course of consideration of the Petition, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issues that arise for determination in this Petition as to whether or not the petitioner was entitled to interest and if so, at what rate, stand settled by the judgment delivered by a Division bench of this Court in LPAOW No.90/2002 and that the petitioner's case, which was covered by the judgment, needed its disposal in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench. 8. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. The issues that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in LPAOW No. 90/2002 and no further discussion on the issue may, therefore, be necessary. This Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed on the basis of what was held by the Division Bench. 10. 9. The issues that arise for consideration in the Writ Petition are covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in LPAOW No. 90/2002 and no further discussion on the issue may, therefore, be necessary. This Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed on the basis of what was held by the Division Bench. 10. This Writ Petition accordingly succeeds and is, therefore, allowed requiring the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 13% per annum to the petitioner on the amount, which was within the limit prescribed by the Scheme, till it remained in deposit with them, and @ 4.5% per annum on the amount in excess of the prescribed limit, till it was returned to the petitioner. 11. The respondents to calculate the amount payable to the petitioner, as indicated above, for its payment to her within a period of six weeks, in default whereof the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum.