"Even poor domestic help has to approach court:" Kerala High Court imposes costs on post office for refusal to pay interest to depositor

The Kerala High Court recently came to the aid of a domestic help by ordering post office authorities to disburse a deposit of hers with full interest. [Saroja v Postmaster].The Court also imposed costs of ₹5,000 on the post office authorities which has to be paid to the petitioner. While passing the order, Justice PV Kunhikrishnan expressed his disappointment at the fact that a poor domestic helper was forced to approach the court to get the interest accrued on her deposit of a small sum of ₹20,000. "Saving money by a poor man or woman is not to buy a BMW car or to purchase a palatial building or for a luxurious life. The same is for fulfilling his/her small dreams. Every man and woman may have dreams about their life...Even poor domestic helper who deposited her hard earned money of ₹20,000 in the post office time deposit scheme has to approach this Court to get her interest!".The petitioner, a widowed domestic help, had a time deposit scheme with the post office in question. She had deposited ₹20,000 in 2012 when the interest rate on a 2-year deposit was 8.3 per cent and would have entitled her to an additional ₹1,712 at the end of 2014.However, as she was unaware of the maturity date and engaged in caring for her unwell daughter, she only approached the post office in 2021. She was told that she is entitled to get interest for only 2 years and not for the period beyond 2014..The High Court pulled up the post office for its attitude in denying the petitioner her full interest and opined that this is a fit case for it to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."In such a situation, the denial of interest to the petitioner, according to me, is not only unconscionable, but it is a clear case of injustice," the judge opined.The lack of willingness on the part of the respondent authorities to accept responsibility of the situation also drew the ire of the single-judge."After keeping the deposit in their custody, the respondents are teaching the red tape rules to this poor domestic helper," the Court said. .The High Court quoted from the Supreme Court decision in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd & Anr. v Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr, where the top court had held," ... the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power"..The High Court directed the authorities to pay the petitioner an amount of ₹5,000 as costs apart from the deposit amount with full interest. .The petition, filed through advocate Ajit Joy, contended that as per the Post Office Time Deposit (Amendment) Rules of 2014, she was entitled to receive interest on the deposit till its withdrawal, even if the same was not renewed periodically.The respondent post-office authorities had argued that the amended rule was applicable to the post offices working on the Core Banking Solution (CBS) platform. The one where she had deposited the amount had not migrated to the platform, it was submitted. .The High Court rejected this argument as it opined the migration to the CBS platform relates to the internal infrastructure of post offices. The single-judge noted that if the stance of the respondents is accepted, two classes of people will be created - those who deposited before and after a particular post office migrates to CBS. "The first category will not get the benefit of amended Rules and the second category will get the benefit of amended Rules. This is a clear case of discrimination and infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the Court said. Therefore, it ordered the post office authorities to pay the petitioner her depost with full interest as well as ₹5,000 as costs..[Read Judgment]