JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Y.P. Gupta, the learned Panel Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the actions on the part of the Respondent Bank in attaching the entire monthly pension of the Petitioner towards the recovery of the loan. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Petitioner maintains a savings bank account with the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Dimapur bearing Account No. 11839377687. The Petitioner had availed a home loan from the State Bank of India, however, on account of financial constraints, the Petitioner defaulted in payments from time to time. The Petitioner, who was a Government employee, retired in the year 2019 and was issued a PPO Book No. 111917244 by the Government of Nagaland and was drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 57,964/- before deduction of commutation as on the date of filing of the instant writ petition, i.e. on 20.02.2025. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the Respondent Bank attached the entire monthly pension for recovery of the loan and, therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice to the Respondent Bank on 22.06.2024. The demand so made in the legal notice having not been taken into consideration by the Respondent Bank, the Petitioner herein was compelled to approach this Court. 5. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 20.02.2025, while issuing notice, directed the Respondent Bank not to deduct the Petitioner’s pensionary benefits from the SBI Savings Account No. 11839377687 till the returnable date. The interim order had been extended from time to time. 6. In the meantime, the Respondent Bank filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein the home loan agreement dated 09.08.2017 and the arrangement letter dated 09.08.2017 were duly enclosed. 7. The interim order had been extended from time to time. 6. In the meantime, the Respondent Bank filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein the home loan agreement dated 09.08.2017 and the arrangement letter dated 09.08.2017 were duly enclosed. 7. A perusal of the said home loan agreement and the arrangement letter both dated 09.08.2017 reveals that the Petitioner had agreed that in the event of cessation of his business/service, whether by way of retirement, resignation, death or by operation of law, or for any other reason or cause whatsoever, the Bank would be entitled at its discretion to write to his employers to appropriate and set off any amount payable by the Petitioner’s employer, whether by way of salary, allowances, bonuses, other remuneration, or any amount standing to the credit of the Petitioner’s account, towards repayment of the balance in the loan account. It was also mentioned that the reference to Section 60(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which the Petitioner had made was misplaced and misconceived, inasmuch as the said provision pertains to attachment of pension under a Court decree. Further to that, in the arrangement letter dated 09.08.2017 issued by the Petitioner, a request was made that an amount of Rs. 49,231/- be credited every month from the Petitioner’s savings account to the loan account. It was further categorically mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent that the Respondent Bank has not taken any action under the SARFAESI Act, though it is entitled to do so. The records reveal that the Respondent Bank presently is crediting an amount of Rs. 38,796/- per month from the savings bank account of the Petitioner to the loan account of the Petitioner. In that regard, the Respondent Bank has enclosed the loan account statement as Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition. 8. Mr. Y.P. Gupta, the learned Panel Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent drew the attention of this Court to the various entries at Annexure-4 to the affidavit-in-opposition to show that the monthly installment is Rs. 38,796/- which is deducted from the Petitioner’s saving bank account and credited to the loan account of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner being a pensioner, if the entire amount of the pension is not appropriated to the loan account, the Petitioner has no objection in crediting the amount of Rs. 9. Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner being a pensioner, if the entire amount of the pension is not appropriated to the loan account, the Petitioner has no objection in crediting the amount of Rs. 38,796/- from the Petitioner's saving account to the loan account. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent Authorities should permit the Petitioner to operate the said bank account, and taking into account that the Petitioner has no objection in crediting of the amount of Rs. 38,796/- to the loan account, the Respondent Authorities, every month when the pension amount is credited to the Petitioner's savings account, can keep a lien on the said amount of Rs.38,796/- for the purpose of serving the installments to the Petitioner's loan account. 10. Mr. Y.P. Gupta, the learned Panel Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that he has no objection. 11. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondent Bank would be at liberty to credit an amount of Rs. 38,796/- monthly from the Petitioner’s savings bank account bearing No. 11839377687 to the loan account of the Petitioner bearing No. 37078798801. (ii) The Respondent Bank is further directed to permit the Petitioner to operate the said bank account by keeping a lien of Rs. 38,796/- every month towards servicing the loan installments payable by the Petitioner to his loan account. (iii) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.