Judgment Rai, J. 1. Pacts necessary for the consideration of the points raised in this appeal may be shortly stated as follows : 2. Gouri Shanker Lall, the present respondent I, obtained in Title Suit No. 69 of 1949/50 of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, 5th Court, Patna, a decree against Pashupati Nath Sarkar, the present appellant, and A. C. Majumdar, the present respondent 2, for a sum of Rs. 6,209/11/9. The decretal sum represented the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff from the defendants for their wrongful possession of the house and for their having removed some moveables of the plaintiff from the premises in their forcible occupation. On 27-1-1953, the decree-holder executed the decree in Execution Case No. 5/38 of 1952/53. In that execution case the decree-holder sought to attach Rs. 250.00 per month out of the salary of Pashupati Nath Sarkar and Rs. 125/- per month out of the salary of A. C. Majumdar. Pashupati Nath Sarkar, the present appellant, filed an objection which gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1953 which was ultimately dismissed on contest by the decree-holder on 7-4-1954. Pashupati Nath Sarkar thereafter filed before this Court the present Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the substantive pay of Mr. Sarkar on the relevant date was Rs. 570.00 and he was also drawing cost of living allowance of Rs. 99/12/-. Accordingly to him under the provisions of Sec. 60 (1)(i), Civil P. C. Rs. 335/- out of the substantive pay of Rs. 570.00 could not be attached. He further submitted that the amount of provident fund paid by the appellant under the Provident Funds Act, 1925 and also the amount of income-tax deducted at source in accordance with the provisions of Sec.18, Income-tax Act should be held not attachable in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 60(1)(k), Civil P. C. He urged that these two amounts must be deducted out of the remaining amount of Rs. 235/-. He contended that his client was entitled to an accumulative deduction granted to him by both the Sub-clauses (1) and (k) of Section 60(1), Civil P. C. He further submitted that the dearness allowance of Rs. 99/12/- should not be added to the substantive pay of Rs. 570.00 for finding out the amount attachable under Sec. 60, Civil P. C. 4. In support of his first proposition, Mr. 99/12/- should not be added to the substantive pay of Rs. 570.00 for finding out the amount attachable under Sec. 60, Civil P. C. 4. In support of his first proposition, Mr. Ghosh relied on the decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Rangoon V/s. Ram Behari AIR 1939 Rang 432 (A) where Baguley, J. had held that the amount of provident fund payable by the judgment-debtor could be tagged to the amount non-attachable under Sub-clause (i), Sec. 60(1), Civil P. C. That is to say after deducting both the items mentioned under Sub-clauses (i) and (k), the remaining salary could be attached. Mr. Ghosh referred in this connection to the Judgment in the case of -- Bhagwan Dass Ramprosad V/s. Secretary of State, AIR 1941 Pat 157 (B). He relied on the following portion of the judgment in that case :- - "Disbursing officers are now-a-days required by the Income-tax Act to deduct income-tax at the source, and therefore this portion of the salary may be said to be beyond the disposal of the salary holder. But there is nothing in Clause (i) to indicate that the salary mentioned there is the net salary. It may be that the duty cast by statute upon the disbursing officer to deduct the income-tax due operates, in relation to Clause (i), like a summary attachment and realization out of the attachable proportion of the salary. But it may also be that the legislature did not intend to throw the income-tax on the attachable proportion of the salary and leave the salary-holder a clear Rs. 100.00 a month plus one moiety of the excess." But this observation of Dhavle J. is of no assistance to the appellant because he made it clear in the following line that it was not necessary for him to pronounce definitely on that point in that case. This decision, therefore, cannot be an authority in support of the contention raised by Mr. Ghosh. 5. The point under consideration in the present appeal was dealt with by a, Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of -- Supdt. This decision, therefore, cannot be an authority in support of the contention raised by Mr. Ghosh. 5. The point under consideration in the present appeal was dealt with by a, Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of -- Supdt. R.M.S. (C) Division, Calcutta V/s. R.M.S. (C) Division Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd., Howrah, AIR 1944 Cal 135 (C) where it was hold that the provisions contained in Section 60 (1)(k), Civil P. C. related to the deposits already made in accordance with the provisions of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. It was further held that the amount to be deposited in accordance with the Provident Funds Act should go out of the non-attachable portion of the salary. Their Lordships had while considering that point referred to the definition of "compulsory deposit" as given in Sec.2(a), Provident Funds Act which runs thus :- - " Compulsory deposit means a subscription to, or deposit in a Provident Fund which, under the rules of the Fund, is not, until the happening of some specified contingency, repayable on demand otherwise than for the purpose of the payment of premia in respect of a policy of life Insurance (or the payment of subscriptions or premia in respect of a family pension fund) and includes any contribution and any interest or increment which has accrued under the rules of the fund on any such subscription, deposit or contribution and also any such subscription, deposit, contribution, interest or increment remaining to the credit of the subscriber or depositor alter the happening of any such contingency". I respectfully disagree with the view taken by Baguley, J. of Rangoon High Court in the case reported in AIR 1939 Rang 432 (A), and respectfully agree with the view taken by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in AIR 1944 Cal 135 (C) that Sub-clause (k) of Sec. 60(1) related to the deposit already made and that that amount was to go from the non-attachable portion of the salary. Such is also the provision made in Bihar Treasury Code in Article 233 which runs thus : -- "Any deduction which may have to be made on account of subscriptions to provident funds recognised by Government, taxes on income payable by the Government servant and debts due to Government should be made from the non-attachable portion of the Government servants salary". Thus the contention of Mr. Ghosh that the provident fund amount and the income-tax amount should be deducted out of the remaining sum of Rs. 235/- must be rejected. 6 Mr. Ghosh next contended that the Court below has made a distinction between the two judgment-debtors by ordering attachment of Rs. 250.00 per month from the salary of Mr. Sar-kar while only Rs. 125/- per month was to, be attached out of the salary of Mr. Majumdar. This, according to Mr. Ghosh, was wholly against the provisions of Article 14, Constitution of India. In support of his contention Mr. Ghosh referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of -- State of West Bengal V/s. Anwar All Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 (D). In my view, there is no substance at all in this point of Mr. Ghosh. As the two judgment-debtors draw different amounts of substantive pay attachment of unequal amount has to be made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 60, Civil P.C. Both of them are not similarly situated. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above has no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Mr. Ghosh next pointed out that on the application of Mr. Sarkar the Controller had fixed a certain amount of rent payable by his client under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. He urged that the decree-holder was not entitled to execute the decree in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Act 3 of 1947. This argument of Mr. Ghosh is also untenable in law. The point raised by Mr. Ghosh had been agitated in Title Suit No. 69 of 1949 also in which a specific issue was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit and it was held in that case that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount decreed in the title suit. In view of the judgment and decree under execution, the executing Court was justified in rejecting the plea of the present appellant that the decree was not executable. 8. I, however, agree with Mr. Ghosh that the sum of Rs. 99/12/- paid every month to Mr. In view of the judgment and decree under execution, the executing Court was justified in rejecting the plea of the present appellant that the decree was not executable. 8. I, however, agree with Mr. Ghosh that the sum of Rs. 99/12/- paid every month to Mr. Sarkar as dearness allowance is not attach able as provided under Note 2 to Sec.231, Bihar Treasury Code which runs thus : -- "By a declaration issued by the Provincial Government under Clause (1) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Sec. 60, Civil P. C., the following allowances payable to any public officer in the service of the Government of Bihar shall be exempt from attachment by order of a Court. * * * * (iv) All allowances granted as compensation for higher cost of living in localities considered by the Government to be expensive localities including compensatory allowances under the Ranchi Rules." 9. The result is that only Rs. 235/- per month and not Rs. 250.00 was attachable out of the salary of the present appellant on the date of attachment. The miscellaneous appeal is thus allowed in part, but in the circumstances of this case, there would be no order for costs of this Court. Ahmad, J. 10 I agree.