PENSION AND GRATUITY AMOUNTS OF RETIRED EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE ATTACHED FOR SATISFACTION OF ANY DECREE, OBSERVES TELANGANA HIGH COURT
The Telangana High Court
in the case Smt. N.R Indira v. The State of Telangana
and 3 others observed in a recent ruling following the Supreme Court decision in the case Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National
Bank, 2009, wherein the court held that the pension
and gratuity amounts of a retired employee cannot be
attached for satisfaction of a decree of any Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petition filled a writ petition seeking a Writ of
Mandamus against the respondent for not releasing her pension and gratuity. However, the petitioner was working as a Record Assistant in the office of the Respondent and has retired
from service on 31.07.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation.
Further, soon after the retirement, the petitioner followed up for her retirement benefits and the same was brough to her notice that the Civil Court had passed directions to Respondent
to withhold Petitioner’s salary, thus, leave encashment and other benefits as under
Section 60 of the CPC as she was a surety or guarantor for loan transactions that had been defaulted.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the direction of the Civil Court was to withhold salary, leave encashment but
the respondent has stopped gratuity, pension and the other pensionary benefits which is not permissible
under Section 60 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and
under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and Section 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
COURT RULING:
The bench headed by Justice P. Madhavi Devi observed
and has examined the facts of the case while relying
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case Radhey Shyam (Supra), wherein the court held that “the petitioner pension and gratuity cannot be attached and the same cannot be withheld
for appropriation of a decree of any Civil Court. Accordingly, the court directed the entire amount of pension and gratuity is to be paid by
the respondent as eligible. However, it has been made clear by the court that petitioner would not be entitled for payment towards encashment of leave as it is not exempted from attachment
under Section 60 CPC. The court partially allowed the
writ.