SURESH CHANDRA AWASTHI Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court was employed with respondent-Vijaya Bank wherefrom he retired on 28.11.2008. Bank Flat No.11-D, Kanchanjangha Aptts. Sector-53, Noida was allotted to the petitioner with effect from July, 1997. A perusal of reply dated 30.10.2009 sent by the bank to the counsel for the petitioner would show that as per the extant guidelines of the bank pertaining to occupation of its quarters, an officer was eligible to occupy bank's quarters for a period of maximum five years. This letter further shows that the petitioner was advised, by the Competent Authority, vide letters dated 6.6.2005, 138.2005 and 9.9.2005 to vacate the said quarter. Another letter dated 25.3.2006 was sent to him directing him to vacate the quarter on or before 15.4.2006. This was followed by another letter dated 22.5.2006 directing him to vacate the said flat by 31.5.2006. He was further informed that if the flat was not vacated by 31.5.2006, he would be charged rent @ Rs.7,500/- per month with effect from 1.5.2006.

(2.) SINCE the petitioner did not vacate the said flat even by 31.5.2006 and vacated the same on 30.1.2009, after he had retired from the bank on 30.11.2008, he was asked to pay penal rent @ Rs.7,500/- per month with effect from 1.5.2006. The bank account of the petitioner was seized by the bank and the penal rent was recovered. Vide order dated 2.6.2010, the Banking Ombudsman directed the respondent bank to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for freezing his account. However, no order with respect to the payment of penal rent was passed by the Banking Ombudsman. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by Banking Ombudsman. That appeal, however, was dismissed by the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had submitted yet another representation dated 12.4.2010 to the respondent. Since that representation had not been decided, he preferred W.P(C) No.7128/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following order:

(3.) THE petitioner submitted yet another representation dated 16.2.2013 to the respondent, for redressal of his grievance arising out of imposition of penal rent upon him. The said representation was rejected on 26.2.2013 on the ground that the issue raised by the petitioner had already been addressed in W.P(C) No.7128/2011 and the bank had already complied with direction given by the Court in the said case. Being aggrieved from rejection of his representation, the petitioner has again approached this Court seeking a writ or direction to reimburse the penal rent recovered from him along with ancillary benefits.