Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2884 (MAD)

M. Mariapushpam v. Accountant General, Chennai

2013-08-07

M.VENUGOPAL

body2013
Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to withhold the Terminal benefits payable to the 4th Respondent on the eve of his retirement on 24.05.2005. She also sought for passing of an order by this Court for issuing direction relating to payment of a portion of the said terminal benefit to her and her children by passing orders on her representation dated 05.01.2005. 2. The Petitioner's marriage with the 4th Respondent took place in the year 1984 and as a result of wed lock, they have three children. Her sons and daughter, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition, were studying in Engineering College and the third son was studying in 12th standard. The stand taken by the Petitioner is that in the year 1990, the 4th Respondent deserted her family and living separately. The 4th Respondent/Husband filed a divorce petition in I.D.O.P.No.142/92 & G.P.No.13/93 and they were dismissed by the lower Court and also confirmed by this Court. She filed a maintenance case before the lower Court in terms of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure and the same was ordered and arrears of maintenance amount was pending. 3. According to the Petitioner, her husband was retiring from service on 24.05.2005 and he would get all retirement benefits on that day itself and also that he would evade payment of maintenance amount. It is her plea that a Government Servant has a duty to protect his family and maintained. She made several representation to the Respondents after narrating all necessary facts especially on 05.01.2005. However, there was no response from the Respondents. Therefore, she filed the present Writ Petition. 4. It is her plea that a Government Servant has a duty to protect his family and maintained. She made several representation to the Respondents after narrating all necessary facts especially on 05.01.2005. However, there was no response from the Respondents. Therefore, she filed the present Writ Petition. 4. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, it is contended that as per Provisions of Section 60 (g) and (k) of Code of Civil Procedure, the amounts relating to (a) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of Government; and (b) all deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act 1925 for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment in execution of a decree and further, any sub-section or deposit in a provident fund account as per Section 3 of the Provident Funds Act shall not any way be capable of being assigned or charged and further the same shall not be liable to attachment under any decree of order of any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber. 5. Added further, as per Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 if a retiring Government servant or a deceased Government servant does not clear the Government dues, such due amounts shall be deducted from the Gratuity payable to him. Furthermore, as per Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, no pension granted or no money due or to become due on account of any pension or such allowance shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of the Creditor, for any demand against the Pensioner or in satisfaction of a decree or any such order of the Court. 6. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that the 1st Respondent had already authorised the payment of pensionary benefits to the 4th Respondent on his attaining the age of superannuation as per Office authorisation Letters No.P11/2/M148-1698/AR/2004-2005/3280-3282 and P11/2/ M148-1698/AR/2004-2005/3283-3285 dated 15.6.2005. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 7. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable. 7. However, the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3 contends that the Petitioner already filed O.S.No.536 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai against the 4th Respondent praying for payment of maintenance. On 13.11.1997, the Judgment was pronounced wherein the 4th Respondent was directed to pay Rs.200/- each to the three children. Also that, an order was passed to release/attach the landed property of the 4th Respondent, if he failed to pay the maintenance amount. The 4th Respondent failed to pay maintenance. The 4th Respondent in his letter dated 23.03.2005 had reported to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum that the landed property mentioned in the Court Judgment dated 13.11.1997 in O.S.No.536 of 1992 is in possession of the Petitioner. In the said Original Suit, no Government officials were arrayed as Defendants. 8. The Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3 submits that the Petitioner issued a Lawyer's Notice dated 10.03.2005 to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum wherein it was mentioned that the maintenance amount was not paid by the 4th Respondent in terms of Decree in O.S.No.536 of 1992 and more than Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid by him to her. Further, a request was made to him not to release the pensionary benefits to the 4th Respondent, since the case for attachment of the amount was pending in the Court. The same request was made by the Petitioner through her letter dated 20.10.2005 to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum. 9. According to the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3 contends that the Petitioner's representation dated 20.10.2005 was forwarded to the Office of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum as per Communication N.Dis. No.01019 A2/2005 dated 02.03.2005 of the District Elementary Educational officer, Nagercoil. Also, an Advocate by name P.S.Soundar Raj, Kuzhithurai issued a notice dated 10.03.2005 to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum on behalf of the Petitioner with a request not to pay the pensionary benefits to the 4th Respondent, in view of the fact that the pendency of maintenance case in Kuzhithurai Court. The 4th Respondent furnished his explanation dated 23.03.2005 to the letter dated 12.03.2005 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrumand that a copy of Judgment dated 13.11.1997 in O.S.No.536 of 1992 was furnished. 10. The 4th Respondent furnished his explanation dated 23.03.2005 to the letter dated 12.03.2005 of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrumand that a copy of Judgment dated 13.11.1997 in O.S.No.536 of 1992 was furnished. 10. It transpired from the said Judgment dated 13.11.1997 that the 4th Respondent was ordered to pay maintenance arrears of Rs.7200/-and monthly rent of Rs.200/- each to the children of the Petitioner etc. In O.S.No.536 of 1992 the Judgment was delivered on 13.11.1997. However, the 4th Respondent worked under the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum only for the period from 22.10.2003 to 31.05.2005. As such, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrumtook action on the Petitioner's representation and her counsel. Indeed, the 4th Respondent retired from service on the afternoon of 31.05.2005. 11. Apart from the above, the Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3 submits that the Petitioner filed E.P.No.75 of 1999, E.A.No.88 of 2005 (O.S.No.536 of 1992) on the file of the trial Court during April 2005 seeking a direction for interim attachment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the commutation of pay of the 4th Respondent and a notice was also served to the Garnishee therein. 12. When that being the fact situation, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a direction to the Respondents 1 to 3 to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the 4th Respondent on the eve of his retirement and direction for payment of a portion of the said benefit to her and her children. 13. In view of the fact that the 4th Respondent retired from service and also this Court bearing in mind an important fact that the Petitioner, after obtaining a Decree in O.S.No.536 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, had also filed E.P.No.75 of 1999 in E.A.No.88 of 2005 praying for passing of an order of interim attachment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the commutation of pay of the 4th Respondent etc. and the Petitioner in the Writ Petition has raised a ground to the effect that the Respondents 1 to 3 should make an enquiry in the representation dated 05.01.2005 and to pass orders after giving opportunity to the 4th Respondent with reference to the payment of terminal benefit to her and her children to discharge the 4th Respondent's family obligation. 14. 14. The Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3 submits that the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Suchindrum took action on the representation of the Petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the 4th Respondent served only for a period from 22.10.2003 to 31.05.2005 when the 4th Respondent had got superannuated on 24.05.2005 and also that the Petitioner had initiated Civil Suit in O.S.No.536 of 1992 on the file of the trial Court against her husband viz., the 4th Respondent and also filed E.P.No.75 of 1999, E.A.No.88 of 2005 in O.S.No.536 of 1992. Therefore, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that nothing survives in the present Writ Petition for adjudication by this Court. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it fails. 15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.