While granting relief to a senior citizen by directing the lifting of the freeze imposed on his Fixed Deposit Account, the Telangana High Court has held that the Department of Posts cannot indefinitely withhold operation of the account merely based on a legal notice raising allegations without any further determination.

The petition was filed by a 75-year-old man who required urgent access to his Fixed Deposit amounts maintained at GPO.

The Single Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held, “Petitioner has specifically pleaded that he is a 75- year-old senior citizen suffering from serious medical condition and requires access to his funds for medical treatment and personal care. Respondents have not disputed the fact that funds standing in Fixed Deposit accounts originated from petitioner’s savings bank account. They have also not asserted any competing claim from any other person with respect to the deposits. In such circumstances, continued freezing of deposits operates as a restriction on petitioner’s access to his own property and funds. When the governing rules themselves recognise the right of either holder of a Joint-B account to independently operate the deposit, the Department cannot indefinitely withhold operation of the account merely on the basis of a legal notice raising allegations without any further determination.”

Factual Background

The Petitioner, a Septuagenarian presently in an end-stage medical condition, bedridden and incapable of walking, required urgent access to his Fixed Deposit amounts maintained at GPO, for life-saving medical treatment, nursing and hospital care. The deposits were opened under “Joint B Either or Survivor” mode, permitting independent withdrawal by either holder. However, the deposits were frozen following an impersonation fraud committed by a third person who falsely projected herself as the petitioner’s wife. As per the petitioner, a caretaker appointed to assist him impersonated herself as his wife, manipulated her Aadhaar identity details and illegally caused her name to be inserted in certain Fixed Deposit records. He reported the impersonation, illegal confinement, sedation and fraudulent interference with his financial records to the SHO and the Deputy Commissioner of Police through written complaints.

It was claimed that despite the complaints, the matter was kept under enquiry and no effective action was taken by the police authorities. The petitioner stated that the GPO Abids authorities froze the Fixed Deposits and declined to provide copies of the relevant records. As per the Petitioner, the continued freezing of deposits violated the provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Rules, 2019 and infringed his rights under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution by preventing him from accessing his own funds during a critical medical condition.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the Respondents themselves admitted in the counter that accounts were frozen only after receipt of the legal notice raising allegations of fraud, and such freezing was done purely as a precautionary measure to avoid procedural complications. The Bench also noticed that the Department had not undertaken any independent assessment regarding the correctness of the allegations. Respondents had also stated that no representation or claim was made by the other account holder in relation to the deposits.

The Bench thus stated, “In these circumstances, the action of continuing freeze on petitioner’s Fixed Deposit accounts indefinitely, without any adjudication of rights and without any statutory provision authorising such continued restriction, cannot be sustained. Respondents themselves have acknowledged that accounts are Joint-B accounts permitting independent operation by either holder under the POSB Rules and CBS operational procedures.”

The Bench was of the view that once the Department had not undertaken any determination regarding the allegations and once respondents themselves stated that they awaited directions of this Court, the continued denial of access to the petitioner’s own deposits could not be justified.

The Bench thus held that the petitioner had made out a case for the issuance of a direction to respondents to lift the freeze placed on the petitioner’s Fixed Deposit accounts and to permit operation of the accounts in accordance with the Joint-B (Either or Survivor) mandate recognised under the Post Office Savings Bank Rules, 2019 and the applicable CBS operational procedures.

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench directed the Department to forthwith lift the freeze imposed on the Fixed Deposit Accounts and permit the petitioner to operate the said accounts and withdraw or close the deposits in accordance with the Joint-B (Either or Survivor) mandate and the applicable Postal Savings Bank Rules, 2019.

Cause Title: Girigalla Sriniva v. The Union of India (Case No.: Writ Petition No. 35374 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order


Telangana High CourtJustice Nagesh Bheemapaka

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.