Calcutta High Court
Ananda Mohan Ghosh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 August, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1989)1CALLT19(HC), 93CWN667
JUDGMENT Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by 12 teachers of Santragachi Kedarnath Institution praying inter alia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect and or further effect to the Director General of Posts' Letter No. 65./23/84-SB, dated 19.7.85 (copy of which is annexure 'J' to the writ petition) and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the face value as mentioned in the National Savings Certificate receipts on discharge and for other consequential reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition itself. It is stated that the petitioners are the permanent and approved teachers of Santragachi Kedarnath Institution. The National Savings Certificates (NSC) (V. issue) were introduced from 1st January, 1974 and their sale was discontinued with the close of business on 30.4.81. The denominations of the said NSC were Rs. 10, Rs. 50, Rs. 100, Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000. As per National Savings Certificates (V-issue) Rules, 1973, the petitioners purchased the 7-year NSC (V-issue) from the Santragachi Post Office being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said Certificates and in pursuance of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No. GSR, 421 (E), dated 6.9.73. The aforesaid Certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners and in their individual names. In View of the aforesaid rules the petitioners along with other teachers of the said Institution applied before the Authorities concerned praying for permission for the investment of the part of the Provident Fund money in the National Savings Certificates (V-issue) by purchasing the same. Accordingly, sanction was accorded by the Additional Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), West Bengal, on 24.1.78 and by virtue of the said sanction of the Controlling Authorities concerned the petitioners along with other teachers of the said Institution purchased the aforesaid National Savings Certificates out of their respective Provident Fund money lying with the said Santragachi Post Office. Howrah It is further stated that the petitioners purchased the aforesaid NSC (V-issue) on 8.3.78 and the same matured on 8.3.85. Upon maturity of the said NSC on 8.3.85 the petitioners approached the Sub-Post Master of the said Santragachi Post Office for encashment of the said Certificates and the petitioners were asked to produce the said Certificates duly signed by the individual teachers. On production of the said Certificates the said Post Master refused to pay as per face value of the said Certificates to the petitioners on the ground that those Certificates were issued irregularly and the said Post Master told the petitioners that they are entitled to have the interest at the rate applicable to Savings Bank Public Account in lieu of the stipulated rate of interest as mentioned in the Certificates. It is alleged that the petitioners made several representations through the Secretary of the Teachers Provident Fund of the said Institution and the said representations were not considered properly. On 27.7.85 the petitioners made a representation through their Manager again to the respondent No. 5, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Howrah Division, but to no effect. The said respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the Secretary on 4.11.85 stating that the said Certificates were purchased by the petitioners irregularly and the petitioners were given an option that if they are agreeable to encash the said Certificates, they can get interest at the rate applicable to the Savings Bank Public Account only. There is chain of correspondence in this behalf and since nothing was done the petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition on the ground that the action taken by the respondents concerned for non-encashment of the NSC (V-issue) purchased by them as per stipulated amount mentioned in the said Certificates, is wholly illegal, motivated, arbitrary, mala fide, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice, and the action taken by the respondents by declaring the Certificates purchased by the petitioners as irregular on the basis of the Director General of Posts' letter No. 65/23/84-SB, dated 19.7.85 is wholly illegal and mala fide as the said circular is not applicable in the case of the petitioners and further said circular was issued long after the maturity of the said Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners and as such the same is liable to be set aside and/or cancelled.
2. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is divulged in the said A/O that the case is regarding encashment of 7-year NSC (V-issue) issued from Santragachi Post Office on 8.3.78 and matured on 8.3.85. The holders of the Certificates claimed for encashment on maturity and produced the Certificates to the Sub-Post Master, Santragachi Post Office, who on checking the Certificates detected the irregularity, in issuing the said Certificates as the Certificates as per Rules 6A and 10 of National Savings Certificates (V issue) Rules, 1973, in the name of the Teachers Provident Fund were due to be issued in 7-Year (II-issue) instead of 7-Year (Vth-issue) and as such the Certificates were not accepted for encashment by the Santragachi Post Office. The Manager, Teachers' Provident Fund, Santragachi Kedarnath Institution was informed by the office of the respondents by letter, dated 4.11.85 regarding the irregularity in issuing the certificates and the petitioners are not entitled to ask for the full face value thereof as stipulated in the National Savings Certificates.
3. An affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand taken in the main writ petition.
4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court that there is no irregularity in issuing the Certificates and there is no bar and/or impediment for the petitioners to obtain the full face value thereof. The Director General of Post Offices has got no authority to issue the said letter after the maturity of the National Savings Certificates and the case as made out by the respondents is not supported by law.
5. Mr. Hossain, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has tried to support the stand taken by the respondents and he has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 6A of National Savings Certificates (V Issue) Rules, 1973. According to him the rule does not permit the petitioners to purchase the Certificates from the Provident Fund amount and the Certificates were issued irregularity and in consequence thereof Rule 10 of the said Rules would be attracted, which provides that any Certificate purchased or acquired in contravention of this Rule shall be encashed by the holder as soon as the fact of the holding being in contravention of these rules, is discovered and no interest shall be paid on any holding in contravention of these Rules. In support of his contention he has referred to a judgment in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 470 and 2273 of 1984 delivered by Hari Lal Agarwalla J. of the Patna High Court on 15th April, 1985 (Ram Mohun Roy Seminary v. Union of India and Ors.). It was pointed out that once there is irregularity in purchasing the Certificates, the question of estoppel does not arise as there cannot be any estoppel against the statute and the consequence of Rule 10 would be attracted unquestionably.
6. Having heard Mr. Ghosh for the petitioner and Mr. Hossain for the respondents at length and after going through the materials on record, it appears to this Court that if there is a specific bar for the petitioner to purchase the NSC as stated above, the petitioners cannot get any relief in the manner as sought for. The question has got to be adjudicated by this Court as to whether there is really any bar or not. Both sides have specifically referred to Rules 6A and 10 of the said Rules. Rule 6A is as follows:
"6A. Purchase of Certificates on behalf of others-A person or body specified in column 1 of the Table below may purchase certificate(s) on behalf of persons specified against his or its name in the corresponding entry in column II of the said Table :
Provided that the persons specified in the said column II are eligible under these rules to purchase the Certificates Table I II Person or body who can on behalf of purchase
(i) an adult a minor
(ii) a Co-operative Society, a its members, clients, Co-operative Bank or a employees of contractors Scheduled Bank whose moneys are held as deposit or otherwise with such Society or Bank,
(iii) A Gazetted Government person whose moneys Officer, an officer of a are held as deposit or Government Company or otherwise with such of a Corporation or of a Officer on the Reserve Local Authority, or an Bank Officer of a Corporate Body like a Marketing Committee established un-
der a State Act and authorised by the State Government in this behalf, in his official capacity, or the Reserve Bank of India."
7. From the aforesaid Rule 6A as set out, it does not appear that there is any specific bar for an individual to purchase NSC from the provident fund. However, this doubt has been dispelled looking to the Small Savings Schemes Ready Reckoner, corrected upto 1.4.84 and it will appear from the rule for issuance of 7-Year National Savings Certificates (II.Issue) that the NSC can be purchased by the following persons amongst others an Authority controlling the Provident Fund and the same may be purchased in the name of individual members. The next question raised is that such rule is applicable to II issue of NSC and can be governed with regard to Vth issue. Looking to Chapter 15 of the said Small Savings Schemes Ready Rockoner as to the purchase of NSC (Vth Issue), it-is provided clearly in Clause 3(c) that Certificates could be purchased on behalf of others as indicated in para. 4(i) to (iv) of Chapter 12 relating to 7-Year NSC (II Issue) covering the interpretation of Rule 6A of the National Savings Certificates (Vth Issue) Rules, 1973. This clearly dispels all doubts as to whether a person can purchase any Certificates as covered by Rule 6A. There remains no doubt that an individual can purchase NSC out of the Provident Fund money as indicated in the said Ready Reckoner. Once this doubt is settled that Certificates can be purchased by applying the test as laid down in Rule 6A, the question of invoking Rule 10 as to irregular holding does not arise at all. Rule 10 only comes into play when there is admitted irregular holding and not the case covered by Rule 6A. There, is no dispute as to the judgment of the Patna High Court indicated above, and in a case where admittedly there is irregular holding, the law will take its own course irrespective of question of estoppel as there can be no estoppel against the statute. This proposition is not disputed before this Court as the instanti case does not come within that purview. It is clear before this Court that the teachers of the said Institution, who have purchased the NSC by obtaining sanction from the Provident Fund Authority and after maturity they went to encash the same, cannot be denied their claim by looking to the alleged letter of the Director General of Post Offices in the manner as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition in any manner whatsoever.
8. Considering this aspect of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to pay full value of the impugned National Savings Certificates as disclosed in the writ petition to the petitioners within three months from date granting all benefits for the period after the date of maturity till the date of realisation of the amount in accordance with law..
9. There will be no Order as to costs.