JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. 1. On 24.07.2017, this Court, passed the following order: "Being aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 07.06.2016 of State Bank of India, Jayankondacholapuram Branch, addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jayankondacholapuram, Ariyalur, not to transfer the petitioner's salary account to any other bank account and also to regularise the loan account at the earliest to avoid complications, borrower has filed the instant writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by the possession notice dated 13.11.2015 issued by the bank for recovery of Rs.11,87,862/-, she has filed S.A.No.487 of 2015 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai and two applications, SIA No.1508 of 2015, for urgent hearing and SIA No.1509 of 2015 for stay, respectively. Writ petitioner has further contended that SIA No.1508 of 2015 filed for urgent hearing was taken up and allowed. Thereafter, in S.I.A.No.1509 of 2015, the respondent bank was directed to maintain status quo, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the loan account on or before 15.12.2015, which the petitioner, in the supporting affidavit has contended, that the said amount has been deposited. 3. Contending inter alia that the petitioner is a widow and suffering from diabetes and if the entire salary is credited to the loan account, she would find it difficult for her livelihood. Petitioner is stated to have sent a letter dated 21.04.2017 to the bank requesting not to transfer the entire salary account. She has also stated that she is agreeable to transfer 50% of the salary to the loan account. 4. Taking note of the same, we order notice to respondents 2 and 3, through Court and privately, returnable in three weeks. 5. There shall be a direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jayamkondacholapuram, Ariyalur, to remit only 50% of the salary towards loan account with State Bank of India, Jayankondacholapuram Branch, Ariyalur District. 6. Post after three weeks" 2. Subsequently, on 05.09.2017, this Court, further ordered as hereunder: "Mr. G. Thyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a proposal for one-time settlement of loan account, for payment of Rs.4 lakhs has been offered towards the outstanding dues payable by the writ petitioner. However, on instructions, Mr. 6. Post after three weeks" 2. Subsequently, on 05.09.2017, this Court, further ordered as hereunder: "Mr. G. Thyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a proposal for one-time settlement of loan account, for payment of Rs.4 lakhs has been offered towards the outstanding dues payable by the writ petitioner. However, on instructions, Mr. M. Devaraj, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that for such a low amount, Bank would not be in a position to accept the proposal. But, Bank has tentatively accepted the proposal for Rs.9 lakhs, subject to sanction from higher authorities. 2. As the matter centres only on the quantum of the amount, exercise of the powers under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we deem it fit to refer the matter to the National Lok Adalat, scheduled on 9/9/2017. 3. Both the learned counsel have agreed that they would be present along with respective parties before the Lok Adalat on 9/9/2017. 4. Registry is directed to place the matter before the Lok Adalat on 9/9/2017." 3. Considering the plight of the writ petitioner, a widow with a destitute daughter, we referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras, for settlement. 4. Mr. G. Thyagarajan, learned counsel, for the petitioner, submitted that officials of the bank, did not appear, before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras and therefore, there was no occasion for negotiation. 5. Per contra, Mr. M. Devaraj, learned counsel, for the second respondent State Bank of India, submitted that writ petitioner, did not improve her offer for settling the loan account. 6. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the letter of the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Jayakondacholapuram dated 07.06.2016, addressed to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jayankondam and that the same is reproduced hereunder: "We have sanctioned a Housing Loan to the above staff, who is under your control. The account has become NPA (Non Performing Asset). Hence we have initiated action under SARFAESI Act. We are also taking up the matter in the court of law. Under such circumstances, we request you not to transfer her salary account to any other Bank. Kindly advise her to regularize the account at the earliest to avoid complications. In this regard, we seek your co-operation." 7. Hence we have initiated action under SARFAESI Act. We are also taking up the matter in the court of law. Under such circumstances, we request you not to transfer her salary account to any other Bank. Kindly advise her to regularize the account at the earliest to avoid complications. In this regard, we seek your co-operation." 7. Fact remains that the order of this Court, dated 05.09.2017, directing mediation and settlement, has not been responded by the bank, and there was no representation by the bank, before the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. Pursuant to an interim order, granted by this Court, in the instant writ petition, dated 24.07.2017, the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jayamkondacholapuram, Ariyalur, has transferred the salary account of Mrs. S. Parameswari, the writ petitioner, to Indian Bank account. Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.867/2017, of the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Jayamkondacholapuram, Ariyalur, dated 06.11.2017, is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 8. Mr. G. Thyagarajan, learned counsel, for the writ petitioner, submitted that prior to transfer of salary account from State Bank of India to Indian Bank, writ petitioner was not paid salary. After the transfer of salary account, writ petitioner is continuously paying 50% of her salary, towards discharge of the outstanding loan amount with interest. 9. Taking note of the economic condition of the writ petitioner, which requires sympathetic consideration, on the principles of equity, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that for the past four months, she was not paid any salary, we permit the writ petitioner to pay 50% of her gross income, continuously towards discharge of the outstanding amount. Both parties are also directed to explore the possibility of One Time Settlement (OTS), as early as possible. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.