Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1160 (PAT)

Virendra Thakur v. Punjab National Bank

2013-09-23

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Bank. 2. The petitioner is a retired teacher and has his account in Punjab National Bank, Branch Daraunda, District Siwan. He has been authorized pension vide P.P.O. no.447128. 3. The petitioner applied for sanction of loan of Rs.3,40,000/- for purchase of Tractor in the name of his son Sanjay Kumar Singh (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). As the loan amount was not paid, the respondent debited 50% of the amount from its account towards recovery of loan. 4. The petitioner submits that Section 60 (1) (g) of the C.P.C. prohibits attachment and sale of stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners in execution of a decree. 5. Counsel for the Bank submits that the entire pensionary amount is being credited in the Bank in the account of the petitioner and thereafter a sum equivalent to 50% of the pensionary amount is debited for recovery of loan amount. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the pensionary deposits retain their character only till time it did not reach the hands of the employees. Once it reaches in hand of the employee and is deposited in his account, the same becomes a general account as gets mixed with other assets. Thus, the Bank would be within its right to debit such of the amount, as it finds necessary for adjustment of the loan. Counsel for the Bank submits that taking a lenient view, the Bank is adjusting only 50% of the pension deposit made in the Bank so that the petitioner may not be put to any inconvenience. The Bank in support of his contention has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance & Ors, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163 . 6. Before, I consider the submissions of parties, it would be apt to notice the relevant provisions. Section 60(1) details a list of property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree save and except those mentioned in the proviso. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance & Ors, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163 . 6. Before, I consider the submissions of parties, it would be apt to notice the relevant provisions. Section 60(1) details a list of property liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree save and except those mentioned in the proviso. Some of the properties, which are liable to attachment in execution of decree are lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and all saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to judgment debtor etc. 7. The proviso to Section 60(1) enumerates the property, which are not liable to attachment or sale in execution of a decree is detailed in proviso (a) to (i). We are concerned with Proviso (g), which is quoted herein below:— “(g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government [or of a local authority or of any other employer], or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by [the Central Government or the State Government] in this behalf, and political pensions;” 8. Thus, the proviso (g) to Section 60(1) prohibits attachment and sale of stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the official gazette by the Central Government or the State Government. 9. The Bank which referring to the decision in case of Union of India Vs. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance & Ors, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1163 contend that once pension and gratuity had been paid to the concerned employee, they no longer retain their original character and is amenable to attachment. However, till such time as amounts payable by way of pensionery benefits did not reach the employee they retain their original character and cannot be therefore be attached. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, counsel for the Bank submits that the proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code would apply to the source of the amounts received by way of retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, but not to payments made in respect thereof into the account of employee. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, counsel for the Bank submits that the proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code would apply to the source of the amounts received by way of retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, but not to payments made in respect thereof into the account of employee. 10. It is relevant to notice that the Hon’ble Apex Court in subsequent decision in case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 930 observed that even if the retiral benefits are received by the appellant, they do not lose their character and continue to be covered by proviso to (g) of Section 60(1) of the Code. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is quoted herein below for easy reference:– 5. For the purpose of executing the decree the respondent No. 1 Bank initiated execution proceedings and though warrants for attachment of the Matador were issued, the same were not executed by the Bank on the ground that the vehicle was not traceable and instead the Bank sought attachment of the appellant's Fixed Deposits with the said Bank made with the amounts received by him by way of pension and gratuity. The Executing Court allowed the Bank's application and ordered attachment of the appellant's Fixed Deposit Receipts, hereinafter referred to as "FDRs". The appellant moved the High Court against the order of attachment and the High Court while allowing the appellant's application, directed the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in the light of the specific directions given in the judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1994, for recovery of the decretal amount. The Executing Court by its order dated 1st November, 2002, directed release of the appellant's F.D.Rs and the pension amount with a further direction that the hypothecated Matador was to be auctioned first in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 19th December, 1994. The Executing Court also took the view that amounts paid towards gratuity and pension could not be attached in view of the provisions of proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "the Code". 11. The Executing Court also took the view that amounts paid towards gratuity and pension could not be attached in view of the provisions of proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "the Code". 11. Thus, there cannot be any dispute as per the proposition of law that pension, stipends and gratuity allowed to the pensioners of the Government or of the local authority or any other employer cannot be liable to sale or attachment in execution of a decree. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no attachment or sale of the 50% of pensionery amount in execution of any decree, a sum of Rs.6928/-, which would be nearly 50% of the pensionery amount is being adjusted against loan and advance taken against purchase of Tractor on 26.10.2007. Thus, a sum of 6928/- has been adjudged against the loan advance which is not in execution of any decree. 12. As such I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned action of the Bank. 13. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of.