Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 967 (PNJ)

Hira Singh Ranga v. Tej Pal

2013-07-30

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby objections filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the pension along with the scooter of the petitioner has been attached in execution of decree. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor contended that the pension cannot be attached in view of Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Pension Act, 1871 and relied upon judgment of this Court in Rchhpal Singh vs. Balwant Kaur, 2007(2) RSJ 3 to contend that pension cannot be attached. However, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition qua the attachment of the vehicle i.e. Scooter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the pension once deposited in the account does not remain pension and can be attached. 5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. First, it would be relevant to examine the legislative intent behind conferring such an immunity from attachment of pension. It may happen that due to incurring of debt or any other reason attachment in execution is sought against an employee or a pensioner. In such circumstances, Section 60 C.P.C. takes cognizance of the situation whereby the pensioner should not be rendered penniless. Under the provision made under Section 60(1)(g) C.P.C., in the case of salary, it is only a small percentage that is permitted for attachment, the object behind it being that the pensioner should not be left high and dry and should have some financial means to carry on. The immunity is 100 per cent because these are amounts which are supposed to sustain the pensioner in old age when the need of the pensioners is greatest specifically when they may have no other sources of income. Section 60(1)(g) C.P.C. is a special provision which provides protection to the pensioners from attachment. 7. The immunity is 100 per cent because these are amounts which are supposed to sustain the pensioner in old age when the need of the pensioners is greatest specifically when they may have no other sources of income. Section 60(1)(g) C.P.C. is a special provision which provides protection to the pensioners from attachment. 7. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Rachhpal Singh’s case (supra) has observed as under: “....According to its plain terms, Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 protects from attachment, seizure, or sequestration pension or money due or to become due on account of any such pension. The words “money due or to become due on account of pension” by necessary implication mean money that has not yet been paid on account of pension or has not been received by the pensioner and therefore wide enough to include commuted pension. The controversy whether on commutation of pension the commuted pension becomes a capital sum or still retains the character of pension so long as it remains unpaid in the hands of the Government,is not a new one till it was settled by the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance, 1976(3) SCR 763 : AIR 1976 SC 1163 . We may briefly touch upon the earlier decisions on the question. In an English case, in Crowe Vs. Price, 1889(58) LJQB 215 it was held that money paid to a retired officer of His Majesty’s force for the commutation of his pension does not retain its character as pension so as to prevent it from being taken in execution. On p. 217 of the Report, Coleridge , C.J. Said: “It is clear to me that commutation money stands on an entirely different ground from pension money, and that if an officer commuted his pension for a capital sum paid down, the rules which apply to pension money and make any assignment of it void, do not apply to this sum.” 8. In view of this, this Court is of the definite view that as per provisions of Section 60(1)(g) CPC, pension of the petitioner cannot be attached. So far as the attachment of the scooter is concerned, that has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is maintained. In view of the above terms, present petition is partly allowed.