1 CGHC010309292021 2026:CGHC:33055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4715 of 2021 1 - Smt. Pushpa Bhaskar W/o Raju Bhaskar, Aged About 53 Years Posted At Government Middle School, Dashrangpur, Block And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) R/o. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Ward No. 22, Behind Govind Petrol Pump Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Deputy General Manager, State Bank Of India Regional Office Area No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/SBI : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.08.03 18:48:14 +0530 2 Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. Petitioner aggrieved with the letter dated 23.10.2021 issued by respondent-Bank asking the petitioner to credit entire amount of Rs.3 lakhs which she received in her account as terminal benefit on account of death of her husband who was a government servant has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned letter/notice dated 23.10.2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction to direct the respondent authorities not to proceed to realize any dues of her husband in future from the account of petitioner. 10.3. Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has not borrowed any money from respondent-Bank. She submits that husband of the petitioner has taken personal loan from the respondent-Bank, she is not liable to repay loan amount and therefore, letter dated 23.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law. 3. Mr. Patanwar, learned counsel for the respondents/SBI would submit that at the time of obtaining personal loan by husband of the petitioner namely Late Raju Bhaskar, he executed agreement 3 and the document addressing to the Block Education Officer, Mungeli, who is the immediate superior officer of deceased employee mentioning that in case of his death, the amount is to be recovered from the terminal benefits like PF and Gratuity. Copy of the said document along with other is placed on record along with covering memo. He submits that husband of the petitioner has obtained loan of Rs.12,50,000/- as personal loan from SBI, NIT Branch, Raipur. According to his instruction as on date sum of Rs.11,58,000/- is still outstanding which is to be recovered in accordance with law. He also submits that in the similar facts of the case a writ petition filed by the legal representative of the deceased borrower came to be dismissed in WPC No.4932/2023 (Ragini Dandekar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) vide order dated 24.06.2025 and the writ appeal filed against the said order was withdrawn by the appellant therein and therefore, this case is also covered by the decision in case of Ragini Dandekar (supra). Petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on the post of teacher. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner took Xpress Credit loan from respondent-Bank for a sum of Rs.12.50 Lakhs on 19.12.2020. After disbursement of the loan amount, unfortunately, husband of the petitioner died. The letter dated 23.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) is issued to the petitioner, who is wife of the 4 deceased/borrower and according to the submission of the counsel for the parties, she got compassionate appointment and is working as teacher. The disbursement of the loan amount in the name of deceased-husband is not in dispute. 6. In similar sets of facts, case of Ragini Dandekar (supra) is disposed of observing as in para 9 which is as under : “9. As per the contract, borrower includes his legal representative. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Contract defined in Section 2(f) would mean the original borrower and after his death his legal representative. The legal representatives to the extent they have inherited the estate from the deceased become a ‘borrower’ for the purpose of Section 2(f) of the Act. The legal representatives step into the shoes of the predecessor. Therefore the letter of authority being executed by the predecessor with the Bank would not lose force on his death but the legal representatives would be liable to get absolved the repayment of the outstanding loan amount. Thus, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.” 7. Considering the facts of the case in hand which appears to be identical to the facts of case of Ragini Dandekar (supra) which was dismissed, petitioner is covered under Section 2(f) and therefore she is having liability to repay the loan amount, in the facts of the case and therefore, the writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi