P.B. Suresh Kumar JUDGMENT
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner availed a career loan from State Bank of India (the Bank) during 2007 for pursuing pilot training course. The father of the petitioner who is an officer of the Bank was the co-applicant of the loan. It is stated by the petitioner that he could not secure a suitable job on completion of the course and could not therefore liquidate the loan liability as agreed. Nevertheless, it is stated by the petitioner that he has paid during the last 10 years about Rs. 26 lakhs in the loan account. While so, the Bank has issued Ext. P6 communication to the petitioner informing him that it has brought into force a One Time Settlement Scheme called 'Rinn Samadhan-II Scheme' (the Scheme); that the Scheme offers significant reliefs to the borrowers and that the petitioner is free to avail the benefits of the Scheme for the purpose of settling his loan liability. On receipt of Ext. P6, the petitioner though sent a communication to the Bank expressing willingness to settle the liability in terms of the Scheme, the request made by the petitioner in this regard was turned down by the Bank in terms of Ext. P7 communication stating that the loan being a staff loan, it cannot be settled in terms of the Scheme. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the Bank and hence this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank detailing the stand taken in Ext. P7 communication. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the Bank, among others, that the officers of Bank who are otherwise capable of settling their loan liability are not entitled to take advantage of the schemes intended for borrowers who are otherwise not capable of settling their liability, especially when such loans are sufficiently secured.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the Bank.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the loan liability of the petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria in terms of the Scheme, otherwise, the petitioner would not have been issued Ext. P6 communication by the Bank. The Bank has no case that the said liability falls within any of the exclusions made in terms of the Scheme. The Scheme does not also contain any reservation as regards the loans of which the officers/employees of the Bank are co-applicants. The short question falls for consideration therefore is whether the Bank is justified in declining the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner for the reason that his father, who is the co-applicant of the loan, is an officer of the Bank.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Scheme in the instant case is a non-discretionary and non-discriminatory one and that therefore, the Bank is precluded from declining the benefits of the Scheme to the petitioner for the reason mentioned above.
6. The Scheme is part of the records. The relevant portion of the Scheme relied on by the petitioner reads thus:
Nature of the Scheme
• The scheme is non-discretionary and non-discriminatory in nature.
• Branches will identify eligible cases and send written intimations to all eligible borrowers for availing of this facility, detailing the dues (including interest & out of pocket expenses etc) as on cut-off date, concessions offered, OTS amount, payment modalities, last date of acceptance of OTS by the borrower etc. intimations to all eligible borrowers should be sent within 15 days of launch of this OTS Scheme and proof of dispatch/acknowledgment should be held on record.
• The Branch functionaries will not have the authority to decline/reject any eligible proposal under this Scheme.
• In case of decline/rejection of OTS for any reason, the respective controllers will be the Competent Authority, who should record the reasons for such decline.
• To speed up the process, respective........