ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner seeks mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to operate her bank account bearing No. 153101000028695 maintained with 1st respondent Bank without assigning any reason, without issuing any prior notice as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to 1st respondent bank to permit her to operate her bank account and pass suitable order as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Sri Repudi Vijaya Kumar while working as Lecturer in Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada died on 15.04.2020 due to COVID-19 leaving behind the petitioner as her legal heir entitled to receive his death benefits. Her son Thomas and two married daughters are also his legal heirs. On submission of the required documents, the Office of Accountant General (A & E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati fixed the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner at Rs. 73,950/- per month for seven years from 16.04.2020 to 15.04.2027 and thereafter at Rs. 44,370/- from 16.04.2027 onwards and issued a letter dated 12.11.2020. The District Treasury, Krishna District at Machilipatnam vide memo dated __.01.2021 sanctioned Gratuity of Rs. 6 lakhs each to the petitioner and her son and pension of Rs. 73,950/- and directed the Sub-Treasury Officer, ATO, Vijayawada (East) to arrange the payment. The petitioner was allotted CMFS ID No. 14438505 under Comprehensive Financial Management System. The petitioner was instructed to open a bank account to credit her pension amount and accordingly, the petitioner opened SB Account with 1st respondent Bank on 21.05.2020. It is a self-operated account. On the date of opening of the account, an amount of Rs. 1,500/- was deposited by her and thereafter, on 03.02.2021 an amount of Rs. 6,83,414/- was credited to her account. On 01.03.2021 an amount of Rs. 75,663/- was credited and thereby, the balance stood to the credit of her account was Rs. 7,60,497.90 ps as on 01.03.2021. While so, 1st respondent freezed her account and did not allow the petitioner to operate her account. The respondents have no right over the amounts lying in her account. When enquired by the petitioner, the Bank Manager of 1st respondent informed that there was an outstanding loan obtained by her deceased husband from the 2nd respondent and hence, 1st respondent was not allowing her to operate her account. The respondents have no right over the amounts lying in her account. When enquired by the petitioner, the Bank Manager of 1st respondent informed that there was an outstanding loan obtained by her deceased husband from the 2nd respondent and hence, 1st respondent was not allowing her to operate her account. Then the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent college and obtained copies of the correspondence between the respondents 1 to 3 and also a letter said to have been signed and issued by her husband on 22.11.2019 as a borrower. As seen from those letters, it appears, her husband obtained loan of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on 22.11.2019 from 2nd respondent Bank with an agreement to pay it in 60 equal monthly instalments @ Rs. 11,000/- and that there was a due of Rs. 5,11,675/- and at the time of obtaining loan her husband authorised the 3rd respondent to pay the loan due from the terminal benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc. to 2nd respondent Bank. Even assuming that such a letter was really addressed by him, still 2nd respondent cannot insist the 3rd respondent to pay loan from the terminal benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. and more so 2nd respondent cannot instruct 1st respondent to freeze the bank account of the petitioner. The remedy available to the 2nd respondent is only to approach the competent civil court for recovery of the borrowed amount, if any. However, so far no suit has been filed and order was obtained by 2nd respondent from any competent court. The further case of the petitioner is that as can be seen from the letter dated 28.01.2021 addressed by 4th respondent to 3rd respondent college, 1st respondent asked to create a lien and arrange the payments to 1st respondent Bank on the ground that the deceased husband of the petitioner also borrowed amounts from the 1st respondent and instructed 3 rd respondent to arrange the amount from the terminal benefits to their branch account. The petitioner's case is that assuming that the respondents 1 & 2 are entitled for recovery of their respective amounts due from the petitioner's husband, 1st respondent cannot directly freeze the account of petitioner thereby depriving her right to operate the same, which would amount Jo deficiency of service on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioner's case is that assuming that the respondents 1 & 2 are entitled for recovery of their respective amounts due from the petitioner's husband, 1st respondent cannot directly freeze the account of petitioner thereby depriving her right to operate the same, which would amount Jo deficiency of service on the part of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is facing severe financial problems because of the high-handed act of the respondents. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2/2021 submitting that after filing of the writ petition and Standing Counsel for 1st respondent filed Vakalat, 1st respondent Bank on 31.03.2021 debited an amount of Rs. 12,09,251/- and Rs. 87,364/- from the account of petitioner without her knowledge and prior intimation knowing fully well about the filing of writ petition. The petitioner thus prayed to direct the 1st respondent to credit the above amounts to her account. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter inter alia contending thus: (a) The SB account has been opened by the petitioner on the instructions of 3 rd respondent authorities for getting the terminal benefits payable to R. Vijaya Kumar to be claimed by his legal heirs. Since the deceased has availed loans from the 1st respondent Bank against his salary and as he submitted an undertaking to the Bank to the effect that in case of his resignation/death, the bank loan can be adjusted from his terminal benefits the college authorities have countersigned the said undertaking. It was reported by the family members that the Vijaya Kumar died on 15.04.2020. Therefore, 1st respondent has requested the college authorities vide letter dated 17.04.2020 for payment of the bank dues. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has opened account No. 153101000028695 with 1st respondent Bank on 21.05.2020 in compliance with the instructions of 3rd respondent. In the month of February, 2021 the terminal benefits were received in the subject SB account. The amounts which were credited to the subject account periodically are as follows : Amount (in Rs.) Date 6,83,414/- on 03.02.2021 75,663/- on 01.03.2021 4,42,125/- on 22.03.2021 1,57,875/- on 22.03.2021 The above amounts were credited to her SB account through NEFT from the treasury. In the month of February, 2021 the terminal benefits were received in the subject SB account. The amounts which were credited to the subject account periodically are as follows : Amount (in Rs.) Date 6,83,414/- on 03.02.2021 75,663/- on 01.03.2021 4,42,125/- on 22.03.2021 1,57,875/- on 22.03.2021 The above amounts were credited to her SB account through NEFT from the treasury. Subsequently the 1st respondent recovered the total dues, which were affected by the computer programmed recovery machinist and as such the two loan accounts of late R. Vijaya Kumar were liquidated which were outstanding with 1st respondent. As per the letter dated 23.01.2021 of 3rd respondent, there were certain dues payable by R. Vijaya Kumar to 2nd respondent Bank and as such an amount of Rs. 5,11,675/- was instructed to be put on hold out of his terminal benefits. In that view, 1st respondent has moral responsibility towards 2nd respondent to pay Rs. 5,11,675/- in compliance to the instructions of 3rd respondent in its letter dated 23.01.2021. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice committed by 1st respondent. Since 1st respondent acted as per loan recovery policy and as per the letter dated 22.01.2018 of the borrower which was countersigned by 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent had the authority to recover its dues as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. There is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st respondent as alleged. After dues to the respondents 1 & 2 are liquidated, the petitioner is free to operate her SB account as per her will. Finally 1st respondent submitted in its counter that the loan of 1st respondent was fully liquated and so far as 2nd respondent is concerned, dues to a tune of Rs. 5,11,675/- plus interest are still be recovered. It is submitted that present credit balance in the account of the petitioner is Rs. 1,44,188/-. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, standing counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. The main plank of argument of Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was absolutely not aware of her husband late Sri R. Vijaya Kumar borrowing loans from respondent Nos. 5. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, standing counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. The main plank of argument of Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was absolutely not aware of her husband late Sri R. Vijaya Kumar borrowing loans from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and executing letter authorising respondent No. 3 college to deduct EMI from his salary and credit to the loan accounts maintained with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and further creating a lien in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of his retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity. To her knowledge, he never executed any such commitment letters. If at all late Sri R. Vijaya Kumar borrowed any loans from the two banks and amounts stood outstanding by the date of his death, they should follow due process of law by instituting suits against LRs of the deceased i.e., the petitioner and her children for recovery of loan amounts from out of the assets left behind by the deceased and lying in their hands. Learned counsel advanced alternative argument that assuming that late Sri R. Vijaya Kumar issued undertaking letters to the two banks and respondent No. 3 college that the outstanding loan if not wiped out by the time of his retirement, the same can be recouped from his terminal benefits such as pension, gratuity etc, even then the respondent banks cannot exercise lien over such terminal benefits in view of embargo created under Section 60(g) of CPC. He would submit that when terminal benefits like pension, gratuity and stipend etc. are exempted from attachment even with the intervention of a Court, the respondent No. 1 cannot unilaterally withdraw the terminal benefits such as pension, gratuity and provident fund which were credited to the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner is a 3rd party so far as loan transaction between her husband and respondent banks are concerned and in that view the respondent No. 1 cannot either freeze her bank account or withdraw amounts there from for appropriation towards the loan which is impermissible under law. Therefore, even if petitioner's husband executes any letter creating lien in favour of banks, they cannot proceed unilaterally much less without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore, even if petitioner's husband executes any letter creating lien in favour of banks, they cannot proceed unilaterally much less without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner. They have to file regular suits for recovery of their respective amounts and execute the decrees. He relied upon Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National bank and others 2009 (2) ALT 9 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 930 to contend that pension, gratuity, provident fund and stipend etc. are exempted from attachment. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition directing respondents particularly, the respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner to operate her bank account and to deposit amounts stealthily withdrawn from her account. 7. Per contra, while supporting the act of the respondent No. 1, learned counsel Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao argued that in view of authorization letter issued by the late husband of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 bank under law secured lien over the terminal benefits of the deceased to appropriate the same for the loan. He would contend that merely because the amounts were credited to the Savings Bank account of the petitioner by the Government, the lien held by the Bank will not get affected. Further, it is not a case of attachment of the prohibited amounts as argued but on the other hand, giving effect to the voluntary undertaking given by the deceased for discharge of the loan. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The point for consideration is whether the action of the respondent No. 1 in freezing the account of the petitioner and transferring the amounts there from to the loan account of her husband is factually and legally sustainable? 9. POINT: Admittedly, Late R. Vijaya Kumar, the husband of the petitioner while working as lecturer in the respondent No. 3 college died on 15.04.2020 due to COVID-19 leaving the petitioner, a son and two married daughters as legal heirs. The petitioner submitted required documents to the respondent No. 3 to receive all the terminal benefits of her husband including pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. which were forwarded to the office of Accountant General (A & E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. The petitioner submitted required documents to the respondent No. 3 to receive all the terminal benefits of her husband including pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. which were forwarded to the office of Accountant General (A & E), Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. While so, it appears as per the instructions of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner opened a Savings Bank Account No. 153101000028695 with the respondent No. 1 to enable the concerned authorities to deposit the terminal benefits in the said account. (a) A perusal of the copy of letter dated 12.11.2020 addressed by the office of Accountant General (A & E), Amaravati to the petitioner would show that since Sri R. Vijaya Kumar died in harness, the petitioner being his wife was granted family pension @ Rs. 73,950/- per month payable from 16.04.2020 to 15.04.2027 and from there onwards @ Rs. 44,370/- per month. In the same letter it was mentioned that a gratuity amount was fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only) payable to the petitioner and her son R. Thomas @ payable equally. The copy of the letter was sent to office of the Deputy Director, District Treasury, Krishna District and then the Assistant Treasury Officer, District Treasury sent a memo dated NIL.01.2021 to the Sub-Treasury Officer, ATO, Vijayawada for arranging payment of pensionary benefits and gratuity through the bank opted by the petitioner i.e., Savings Bank Account maintained by the petitioner with the respondent No. 1. All these terminal benefits of the deceased, seems to have been credited to Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. Then, a copy of the statement of account dated 31.03.2021 filed by the petitioner along with memo in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 shows that on that date two amounts i.e., Rs. 12,09,251/- and Rs. 87,364/- were debited by the respondent No. 1, obviously to credit to the loan account of late R. Vijaya Kumar, of course. Of course, the respondent No. 1 did not deny the same but confirmed in para-3 of its counter stating that after terminal benefits have been received in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 bank recovered total dues by way of a computer programmed recovery mechanism and thereby two loan accounts of late R. Vijaya Kumar were liquidated hitherto outstanding with the bank. (b) Now, the crucial question is whether the respondent No. 1 is legally entitled to take such action. (c) As already stated supra, the amount credited to the SB Account of the petitioner predominantly represents the pension and gratuity. Pension, gratuity, stipend and provident fund in the esteem of the lawmakers are succour to an employee particularly, a retired employee as they play the role of a life supporter. They are deemed sacrosanct and untouchable. The same is evident from different statutes as well as judicial pronouncements. 10. Pension is concerned, it is interesting to note in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India (UOI) (1983) 1 SCC 305 , Hon'ble Apex Court while answering the question whether liberalized pension formula can be made applicable by making differential treatment for those retiring prior to a certain date and those retiring subsequently, happened to discuss the origin of the pension and State's responsibility to implement the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court posed the following questions : (i) What is a pension? Why it is paid? (ii) Is the employer, which expression will include even the State bound to pay pension? (iii) Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? (iv) What are the goals of pension? (v) what public interest or purpose, if any, does the pension serve? Answering the above, it was pellucidly expounded that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, cannot be enforced through Court has been swept aside in the decision of Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1971 SC 1409 which was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and others v. Iqbal Singh, (1976) II LLJ 377 SC. It was observed, in the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic-thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age was recognized and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. It was observed, in the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic-thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age was recognized and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered unto master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. The Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the concept of pension thus : "30. Summing-up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socioeconomic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when - physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered." 11. In State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and others, AIR 2013 SC 3383 : 2013 (6) ALT 1 .1 (DN SC), the Apex Court, equated the pension with property and observed thus : "It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India." Same view was expressed in State of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651 . 12. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India." Same view was expressed in State of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others, (2006) 7 SCC 651 . 12. When coming to the attachability of pension, Section 11 of Pensions Act, 1871 lays down that the pension is exempted from being attached. The same is also the position with regard to gratuity, provident fund and stipend. Proviso to Section 60 of CPC clears this aspect. Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- (a) XXX (b) XXX (c) XXX (d) XXX (e) XXX (f) XXX (g) Stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government [or of a local authority or of any other employer], or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by [the Central Government or the State Government] in this behalf, and political pensions; (h) XXX (i) XXX (j) XXX (k) All compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, [1925] (19 of 1925), for the time being applies insofar as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment; 13. Be that it may, in Union of India (UOI) v. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others, (1976) 3 SCC 607 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pension, provident fund and other compulsory deposits will retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee and thereafter attachment is not prohibited. It was observed thus : "10. We may state without fear of contradiction that provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to, retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee. The reality of the protection is reduced to illusory formality if we accept the interpretation sought. We take a contrary view which means that attachment is possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee. If doubts may possibly be entertained on this question, the decision in Radha Kissan (1) erases them. Indeed, our case is an A fortiori one, on the facts. We take a contrary view which means that attachment is possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee. If doubts may possibly be entertained on this question, the decision in Radha Kissan (1) erases them. Indeed, our case is an A fortiori one, on the facts. A bare reading of Radha Kissian (1) makes the proposition fool proof that so long as the amounts are provident fund dues then, till they are actually paid to the government servant who is entitled to it on retirement or otherwise, the nature of the dues is not altered. What is more, that case is also authority for the benignant view that government is a trustee for those sums and has an interest in maintaining of objection in court to attachment. We follow that ruling and over-rule the contention." However, the above approach was not followed in the later decision reported in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank and others, 2009 (2) ALT 9 (SC) (supra). While observing that the decision in Union of India (UOI) v. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others, (1976) 3 SCC 607 (supra) has been considerably watered down by later decisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court held thus : "25. XXX. We also agree with Ms. Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case (supra), where a contrary view was taken, the consistent view taken thereafter support the contention that merely because of the fact that gratuity and pensionary benefits had been received by the appellant in cash, it could no longer be identified as such retiral benefits paid to the appellant." (a) Therefore, the writing on the wall is clear to the effect that pension and gratuity and of course, the stipend and other benefits like provident fund etc. even after changing hands from the employer, who was their trustee, to the employee who is the beneficiary, still retain their character as such, and are exempted from attachment by any court decree or order. even after changing hands from the employer, who was their trustee, to the employee who is the beneficiary, still retain their character as such, and are exempted from attachment by any court decree or order. (b) In the light of above jurisprudence, this Court cannot countenance the claim of the respondent No. 1 that it holds a lien over the terminal benefits of the deceased to appropriate against the outstanding loan in view of commitment/authorization letter issued by him during his life time. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, what cannot be done through Court's injunction or decree cannot also be done privately and unilaterally by the respondent No. 1 which is against the law. 14. Even otherwise also, a perusal of the correspondence between late R. Vijaya Kumar and respondent Nos. 1 and 3 does not permit me to agree that an unconditional lien was indeed created over terminal benefits by the deceased, when those amounts are in the hands of his LRs. The respondent No. 1 along with the counter filed such correspondence which is relevant here to discuss. A letter dated 22.01.2018 styled as "Irrevocable Letter of Undertaking by the Borrower" was said to be executed by the decreased in favour of the Manager of respondent No. 1 bank. The extract of which is thus : "Irrevocable Letter of Undertaking by the Borrower From R. Vijay Kumar Place: Vijayawada Date: 22.01.2018 To The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank ALC Branch Clean Loan: 153103458000005 Loan Amount: Rs. 15,00,000/- I am availing Clean Loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) In this regard, I hereby undertake that: I hereby irrevocably authorize you to deduct EMI from my loan linked SB account No. 7192 Brach Name ALC Bank Name: IOB for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) Irrevocably undertake that in the event of default of a part or the entire loan amount I authorize you to recover the amount from my account. I will close the account in case I leave my present employment due to transfer/resignation/retirement/termination. I will deposit the cheque received by me from the PF authorities towards payment of my terminal benefits in my savings Bank account linked to Loan account so as to enable you settle the loan account in full in event of my resignation/retirement/Termination. I will close the account in case I leave my present employment due to transfer/resignation/retirement/termination. I will deposit the cheque received by me from the PF authorities towards payment of my terminal benefits in my savings Bank account linked to Loan account so as to enable you settle the loan account in full in event of my resignation/retirement/Termination. Yours faithfully Sd/- (R. Vijaya Kumar)" What all he undertook in the above letter is that in the event of default of a part or the entire loan amount, the respondent No. 1 was authorized to recover the amount from his bank account. Further, he undertook that he would close the account in case he leaves his present employment due to transfer/resignation/retirement/termination. He further stated that he will depositee cheque received by him from the PF authorities towards payment of his terminal benefits in his savings bank account linked to loan account to enable the respondent No. 1 to settle the loan account in full in the event of resignation/retirement/Termination. Thus, it can only be understood that the deceased gave an undertaking that in case of his failure to pay the loan amount, the bank is authorised to recover the same from his savings bank account maintained with the respondent No. 1. However, it does not mean that the respondent No. 1 can forcibly transfer the terminal benefits deposited in the account of the petitioner who is a third party for clearance of the loan. Another undertaking of the deceased is concerned, he stated that he would deposit the cheque received by him from the PF authorities in his savings bank account which is linked to the loan account to enable the bank to settle the loan account. This undertaking cannot be extended too far to an illogical extent to permit the respondent No. 1 to transfer funds from the account of the petitioner that too without prior show-cause notice or at least intimation. It must be said at this juncture that learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 could not be able to support the high-handed act of the respondent No. 1 by showing any provision from any relevant statute or guidelines from Reserve Bank of India. (a) The next document relied upon by the respondent No. 1 is a copy of letter dated 03.01.2018 styled as "SALARY DEDUCTION UNDERTAKING LETTER TO BE FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT FROM HIS EMPLOYER". (a) The next document relied upon by the respondent No. 1 is a copy of letter dated 03.01.2018 styled as "SALARY DEDUCTION UNDERTAKING LETTER TO BE FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT FROM HIS EMPLOYER". This letter was issued by the 3rd respondent college on behalf of deceased. It is a sort of undertaking to deduct a sum of Rs. _________ from the salary of the deceased every month and to remit the same to the respondent No. 1 bank till further instructions. This undertaking letter further reads that in the event of the transfer of the employee elsewhere, the employer undertakes to convey the instructions to the transferee office. The letter further reads that in case the employee tenders his resignation from service the same will not be accepted by the employer till 'No Objection Certificate' signed by the respondent No. 1 bank is produced. The letter also contains that if the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the same will be informed immediately to the respondent No. 1 bank and college will not settle his claims until the 'No Objection Certificate' from the bank is produced. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid undertaking given by the employer in view of the request that might have been made by late R. Vijaya Kumar. However, this document also will not give any unequivocal right to the respondent No. 1 to deduct amounts from the account of the, petitioner to settle the loan. 15. So on a conspectus, the statutory provisions under Section 60(g) and (k) of CPC, and Section 11 of Pensions Act, 1871 and legal decisions, militate against the act of the respondent No. 1. On factual side also the letters said to be executed by the deceased even assume to be true, do not confer any unbridled right on the respondent No. 1 to extract monies from the savings bank account of the petitioner, without her knowledge or intimation to credit to the loan account of the deceased. The respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is nothing much to say because his loan is still pending and no amounts withdrawn from the petitioner's account were credited to the loan account maintained with the respondent No. 2. 16. Therefore, it is trite that a direction shall be issued to the respondent No. 1 to undo the conscious fault committed by it. 16. Therefore, it is trite that a direction shall be issued to the respondent No. 1 to undo the conscious fault committed by it. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner to operate the Savings Bank Account bearing No. 153101000028695 forthwith and further directing the respondent No. 1 to re-deposit the amounts which were withdrawn from petitioner's SB Account and credited to the loan account of her deceased husband within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest @ 7.5% p.a. It is made clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to realise their respective loan amounts by following due process of law. The respondent No. 1 shall pay costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the petitioner. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.