RAJAT KUMAR RATH Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners call in question legality of directions as contained in the orders dated 6-6-1997 and 26-9-1997 (vide Annexures 13 and 16 respectively to the writ application) passed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. By the aforesaid directions the petitioners have been called upon to refund certain amounts received then as interest.

(2.) Factual position is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows :Petitioners opened accounts in the General Post Office, Bhubaneswar captioned 'Monthly Income Scheme' (in short, the 'Scheme'). The deposits are hereinafter referred to as MIS deposits. On different dates nine accounts were opened by the petitioners jointly. Additionally one account was opened by petitioner No. 1. The first account, i.e., MIS No. 1292 was opened on 3-6-1994 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and on the same day Savings Account No. 575272 was opened in the name of petitioners. The arrangement was that the monthly interest accrued shall be credited automatically to the Savings Bank Account. When subsequent Monthly Income Scheme deposits were opened there was an endorsement for automatic credit of interest every month in the Savings Account. Subsequently another Savings Account was opened jointly in the names of petitioners bearing No. 575659. That was done on the date four MIS accounts were opened on 28-12-1994. Endorsements were made in the MIS deposit books as well as the Savings Account Book for automatic credit of interest every month. In respect of 8 of the MIS deposits, automatic credit of interest monthly was to be done in the Savings Account No. 575272, while in other two MIS deposits automatic credit of interest was to be done every month in Joint Savings Account No. 575659. On the basis of objections raised by the opposite parties-postal authorities to the effect that no interest would be payable in excess of the maximum balance of Rs. 4,08,000/-, petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 90,415/-, which according to the postal authority, the petitioners had earned as interest by making excess deposit in MIS accounts. Information given to the petitioners by the postal authority reveals that under the Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules, 1987 (in short, the 'Rules') framed under Section 15 of the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873 (in short, the 'Act') a limit was fixed up to which the deposits can be accepted by the post office. It is the case of opposite parties that the deposit having exceeded the amounts specified in the Rules, the petitioners were not entitled to get interest. Petitioners took the stand that no such objection was ever raised by the postal authorities when they opened the accounts. They were fully aware and conscious of the amount being deposited in various accounts and in fact they had given an impression to the petitioners that the rule is not being insisted upon, and rigidly followed.

(3.) Petitioners' stand in essence is that on 28-12-1994 when the deposits exceeded the limit prescribed, there was no objection raised by the postal authorities and they accepted the deposits and the petitioners went on getting monthly interest in the Savings Bank Account. If the authorities have committed any mistake, the petitioners should not be made to suffer. They could have deposited the amounts elsewhere and with the very same postal department, and invested the amounts in other Schemes like Indira Vikas Patra, Kisan Vikas Patra, National Savings Certificates etc. In all these deposits interest that would have accrued to the petitioners would have been much more than which was granted to their accounts under MIS deposits. The audit authorities made objection after three years and that cannot be a ground to cause financial loss to the petitioners. Had the objection been pointed out immediately, the question of petitioners being required to refund interest received would not have arisen. Additionally it is submitted that under the Rules, the Government of India has power to relax any provision if it causes undue hardship to the depositors. All the relevant documents were sent by the petitioners to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance with copy to the Ministry of Communication and the Senior Post Master for taking note of the peculiar circumstances and for withdrawing the orders passed for refund of the Interest received. But no positive action was taken.