annual interest has been credited in the account, it should be adjusted at the time of closure of the account
through the register of rectification of interest and a remark of adjustment made in the ledger card. A
written notice in the following form should be sent to the depositor indicating the irregular opening with a
request to close the account and take the withdrawal payment personally or through an agent. If the
depositor does not comply with the request, the account may be closed and the amount remitted by
CHEQUE/MO deducting the usual money order commission from the amount of credit.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
Indian Post Office Act, 1898 - Post Office (monthly income account) Rules 1987
framed under Government Saving Banks Act, 1873 - statutory nature of rule,
decision of National Commission in Department of Post and Telegraphs vs. Dr.
R.C. Saxena - 1997 (1) CPR 74 - held no good law - prohibition of opening of
more than one account under Rule 4 of the Post Office (monthly income
account) Rules, 1987.
ORDER
had various monthly income accounts in two different Post Offices, Rajouri Garden
and Ramesh Nagar, Head Office. There were 16 such accounts starting from 1993 to
1998. One of such account was closed on 18.12.2000 and five in 2001. It is not
necessary for us to give the details of these accounts except to note that a letter dated
16.7.1999 was written by the Post Office to Singh pointing out that two of his
accounts had No.84667 dated 3.1.98 and 82934 dated 8.9.95. Therefore, decision
was taken to stop crediting interest in these accounts. Singh complained that he
was never told of excess deposit or there was any limit of deposits. In any case he
wanted the regularisation of irregular accounts. For that he even approached Post
Forum.
It was the case of the Post Office that monthly income scheme is
governed by Post Office (monthly income account) Rules 1987 framed by the Central
Government Saving Banks Act, 1873. Rule 4 of the said Rules provided that a
depositor may open more than one account subject to the condition that deposits in all
accounts taken together do not exceed Rs.2,04,000/- which was for a single account
and Rs. 4,08,000/- in joint account and from 1.2.2000 this limit was further
enhanced respectively to Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.6.00 lakhs. Under Rule 17 of the
Rules decision was, therefore, taken by the Head Post Office who was competent to
take such decision to cause the accounts in excess to be closed and deposits made in
these accounts to be refunded to the depositor without interest. Rule 10 no
It was the case of the complainant that the rule was of administrative
nature and meant for the administrative convenience of the Post Office and it did
thereof. His other plea was that it was the fault of the agent and the employees of the
Post office in getting the accounts opened and not being told of the bar in opening
more than prescribed accounts. Singh said that he was quite ignorant of the intricacy
of the Rules.
District Forum held that it could not question the virus or illegality of
the statutory rules made under the Government Saving Bank Act , 1873 and held
that the rule would prevail. On the question of deficiency of service District Forum
was of the view that certainly the Post Office was deficient as the agent and
employees of the Post Office at the time of opening of the account did not
inform Singh of the limit imposed under the Rules. District Forum, therefore,
directed the Post office to pay interest on the amounts which exceeded the
limits and to be refunded to Singh as per the rules from the date of deposit till
16.8.2000 when competent authority took the final decision directing the Post
office to refund to Singh which exceeded the prescribed limit @ 12% per annum. A
same in limine. Aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, Singh has come
Saving Bank Act, 1873 and the rules framed thereunder. These rules are statutory
and have been framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its power
conferred by the Act. Singh cannot feign ignorance of these rules. In fact the
number of accounts opened by him would rather show that he was quite well versed
in the opening of monthly income accounts. Singh referred to the decision of this
Commission in the case of Department of Post and Telegraphs vs. Dr. R.C. Saxena -
1997 (1) CPR 74 wherein in somewhat similar circumstances this Commission held
that Rule 4 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981 was made for the
administrative convenience of the Department and did not bar the payment of
afraid, we are unable to accept the view so expressed earlier. Perhaps in that
case National Commission was guided by the facts and circumstance of that
case. Here the rules were National Savings Scheme rules, 1987 also framed by the
the Government Saving Bank Act, 1873. Rule 4 provided that depositor may
open not more than one account under the scheme. This Rule is the law and cannot
of Posts & Telegraphs vs. Dr. R.C. Saxena does not, therefore, lay a good
law. Singh then referred Rule 10 which as noted above, empowers the Central
caused undue hardship to the depositor then it may by order, for reasons to be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. We are afraid the Central
Government should have exercised that power or not under Rule 10 is not for us to
We, therefore do not find any error in the order of the District Forum
which was affirmed by the State Commission to express a contrary view. This
…………………………
…………J
(JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
………………………………………J
(J.K. MEHRA)
MEMBER
………………………………………
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER