ORAL ORDER AS PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondent (complainant) was employed as Senior Branch Manager with the petitioner Bank. He was compulsorily retired on 31.03.2000. He held a BOB Card during the course of employment with the petitioner. That was issued to him while the BOB Exclusive Scheme was under control of the petitioner. The petitioner Bank, was also having a pension account of the respondent (complainant). The petitioner bank directly recovered the amount of Rs.2,27,044.58/- from the account of the respondent. Both the foras below came to the conclusion that the petitioner bank could not have directly recovered such amount from the pension account of the complainant in respect of the recovery to be made regarding BOB Card Credit account. We find that the BOB card was issued by the petitioner but the control was subsequently transferred to different legal entity and recovery from the pension account could not have been directly effected without consent of the complainant. 3. We are of the opinion that the recovery made by the petitioner Bank was not legal and proper and no substantial question of law is involved in the petition. We may mention here that the pension is not liable for attachment and recovery from the pension account is illegal though it is not strictly an attachment. We deem it proper to hold that there is no substance in the petition. The revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the concerned BOB Card authority to take steps for recovery in any manner permissible under the law. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings of the fora below require no interference. The revision petition is dismissed.