POLIN MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondent concerned to release the amount in the tune of Rs.50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Only) including the bonus of Rs.5000.00 (Five Thousand Only) of the Monthly Income Scheme along with interest from the date of maturity according to the prevailing Nationalized Bank Rate forthwith and to act in accordance with law.

(2.) The petitioner opened Monthly Income Scheme No. 704014347 at The Bhadrakali Post Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 4') on April 18, 2002, which had matured on April 18, 2008. In order to withdraw Rs.50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Only) including the bonus of Rs.5000.00 (Five Thousand Only), she had signed a withdrawal slip April 19, 2008, and gave it to her authorized agent, Shri Indrajit Banerjee. However unfortunately Shri Indrajit Banerjee passed away on May 31, 2008.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that after the expiry of the agent, she would go to the office of respondent no. 4 to enquire about her Monthly Income Scheme but would get no proper response. After a year of enquiring, she was informed that her Monthly Income Scheme had been withdrawn by cash. In a letter dated July 17, 2009, addressed to the Superintendent, South Hooghly Division, she brought the attention of the authorities to the fact that she had received no documents that such payment had been made in her favor and she wished for her matured amount with bonus to be paid by cheque. By a letter dated August 25, 2009, she wrote to the Chief Postmaster General (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 3') informing him that she had received no reply about what action had been taken. She once again wrote to respondent no. 3 vide a letter dated June 18, 2010, stating that she had received no reply. Furthermore, the Post Office was barred from making repayments of matured saving instruments in cash if the amount including principal and interest is Rs.20,000.00(Twenty Thousand Only) or more. Vide a letter dated June 28, 2010, the Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 5') acknowledged the receipt of the letter and informed the petitioner that the matter was being investigated. However, despite further requests, respondent no. 5 never responded to the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner wrote to the Deputy Director General (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 2') vide a letter dated November 3, 2010, illustrating the entire case to which the petitioner has still received no reply.