RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BAKSHI RAM AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/complainant retired from Central Government service on 31.10.2001. He received the retiral benefits only on 7.2.2002. It appears that the Central Government notified a Relief Bonds Scheme for the retired Central Government employees. The post -maturity interest on Relief Bonds issued under the Scheme was changed from time -to -time from the year 1987 and ultimately the same was made 8% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.2002. However, by subsequent notification dated 22.4.2002 the investment under the above scheme could be made only within three months of receiving the retiral benefits. As has come on record after receiving the retiral benefits the complainant/ respondent invested Rs. 3,00,000 under the above scheme by which on maturity after five years he was to receive Rs. 1,480.25 on every thousand rupees bonds. Subsequently on maturity of the bonds the respondent/complainant was paid only Rs.3,00,000 on 18.5.2007 without any interest as per the scheme. After notice to the appellants the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur which ultimately allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 29.2.2012 directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44:075with 6% interest w.e.f. 1.12.2007 along with Rs.5,000 as compensation and other expenses. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record as also considered the judgment cited at the bar.

(3.) THE facts mentioned above more or less have not been disputed so far. The scheme itself was in force at the time of retirement of respondent/complainant. Only the rate of interest on maturity was changed from time -to -time. The second notification was issued only on 22.4.2002 prescribing time limit of three months for such investment that also upto a limit of Rs. 2,00,000. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of investment of Rs. 3,00,000 by the respondent/complainant, he was made aware of the conditions of both the notifications. It is also not been clarified as to whether the notification dated 22.4.2002 was widely circulated among the retired Central Government employees for whom only the special scheme had been framed by the Central Government. From the certificate of Holding of Bond for Rs.3,00,000 in the name of the respondent/ complainant issued from the Public Debts Office, Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur also it is evidently clear that the maturity value of the Bonds shall be Rs. 1,480.25 for every Rs. 1,000 (nominal). The above certificate was never withdrawa or modified till the date of maturity which was mentioned as 18.5.2007. It appears that only in response to some audit objections raised in the year 2006, some circulars were issued to the branch offices for clarifications and explanation. There is nothing on record to show that any such condition is imposed in notification dated 22.4.2002 existed earlier also. Thus, there is no justification or explanation as to why the investment of Rs.3,00,000 was allowed on 18.5.2002 and a certificate of Holding of Bonds already been issued by a competent authority at the relevant time. In absence of any material on record to show that the conditions of the two notifications were duly informed to the investor, we find it wholly unjustified and unreasonable by denying any interest to the investor for a period of five years. Admittedly the appellant bank has kept the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 from the hard earned retiral benefit of the respondent/complainant for five years. The appellant Bank is a Regulatory Banking Authority and should have taken a reasonable humanitarian approach in such matters of giving special benefit for welfare of the retired Central Government employees or even could have sought clarification if any required from the Central Government.