Petitioner challenged failure to pay maturity value of four Monthly Income Scheme accounts opened irregularly. Court found accounts violated Rule 4 of Post Office Rules. Petitioner entitled only to savings account interest, not MIS scheme benefits. Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
Present :-
Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
W.P.A. No. 21223 (W) of 2016
Tapan Kumar Bose.
-Versus-
Union of India & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty, Adv.
For the UOI : Ms. Indrani Chakraborty, Adv.
Heard on: : 11.11.2022 Judgment on. : 14 .11.2022
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –
2
petitioner approached this High Court and in W.P No.3324(W) of 2005 an order was passed on 15.02.2005, directing the respondents herein to release the admissible dues of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid four MIS accounts. 2. It is contended further that subsequently in WP No.3324(W) of 2005, this High Court on 07.02.2014, directed to calculate the interest and to disburse the same to the petitioner and accordingly admissible SB interest was also paid. It has been contended further that though a sum of Rs.15,76,945/- was due to the petitioner towards principal, interest and bonus as accumulated under the said four MIS accounts but the same has not been disbursed and on the contrary under cover of a letter dated 03.07.2014, the respondent no.3 accorded sanction for payment of a sum of Rs.2,326/- in favour of the petitioner and being aggrieved by the decision as taken by the respondents under cover of the aforesaid letter the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to release a sum of Rs.15,76,945/- with a further prayer to cancel, set aside and rescind the impugned decision of the respondent no.3 under cover of his letter dated 03.07.2014.
3
in this case as well as to the instruction as received by her from the respondents. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that since the aforementioned said four MIS accounts have been opened violating Rule 4 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Rule’) the present writ petitioner is only entitled to get interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the post office savings account and not at the rate applicable for MIS scheme. In support of her contention learned advocate for the respondents also placed her reliance upon Rule 6, Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the said Rule. Drawing attention of this Court to the annexures R2, R3 and R4, it is argued that the aforementioned three annexeures clearly show as to how calculation has been arrived at with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner and thus the decision of the respondent authority to disburse residual interest of Rs.2,326/- in favour of the writ petitioner is very much justified. Learned advocate for the respondents thus request this Court to dismiss the instant writ application.
4
contravention of MIS Rule and therefore the present petitioner is not entitled to get interest as per MIS scheme in respect of four MIS accounts in question.
to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to MATURITY VALUE under MIs scheme rules when accounts were opened irregularly violating Rule 4.
Whether petitioner deposited excess amount and thus entitled only to post office savings account interest rate.
Whether appellant's prayers for release of full dues and setting aside respondent 3's letter dated 03.07.2014 merit consideration.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Tapan Kumar Bose
Union of India
Partha Sarathi Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
