JUDGMENT : Abdul Quddhose, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the first respondent in PGACP No. 6 of 2013, confirming the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the second Respondent in PG No. 47 of 2012. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Vijayakumar worked as Assistant in the petitioner's Co-operative Bank and died while in service on 24.6.2007. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is the wife of the Vijayakumar and one of the legal heirs of the deceased Vijayakumar. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the terminal benefits are to be settled to the deceased Vijayakumar and the said benefits including death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/-, life insurance of Rs. 46,670/-, provident fund of Rs. 71,438.70/- and pending salary of Rs. 36,000/-, totally a sum of Rs. 6,04,108.70/- is payable as terminal benefits to the deceased Vijayakumar by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased Vijayakumar had borrowed money from various creditors including banks and had defaulted in repayment of the said loan. It is their case that in view of the default, some of the creditors had obtained an order of stay in Civil Court against the petitioner not to disburse the terminal benefits to him. It is also admitted by the petitioner that subsequent to the death of Vijayakumar, his wife namely third respondent herein, approached the petitioner's bank on 5.11.2007 and made a request for the disbursement of the terminal benefits payable to the deceased husband. But it is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent gave an undertaking to the petitioner on 27.12.2007 that she would accept the Civil Court decree with regard to her husband's terminal benefits. 3. According to the petitioner, the details of the suit filed by the various creditors for the recovery of the loan availed by the deceased Vijayakumar were also furnished to the third respondent by the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the details of the suit filed by the various creditors for the recovery of the loan availed by the deceased Vijayakumar were also furnished to the third respondent by the petitioner. Since the terminal benefit were not paid to the third respondent, who is the legal heir of the deceased Vijayakumar, she approached the second respondent under the Payment of Gratuity Act against the petitioner for non-payment of gratuity to the deceased Vijayakumar under PG No. 47 of 2012 and the same was allowed by the second respondent by its order dated 6.8.2012, directing the petitioner-bank to pay a sum of Rs. 3,57,770/- as gratuity to the third respondent together with 10% interest from the date of death of Vijayakumar till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2012 in P.G. No. 47 of 2012 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the first respondent in PGACP No. 6 of 2013. By an order dated 12.11.2013 passed in PGACP No. 6 of 2013, the first respondent also confirmed the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner's co-operative bank. 4. Heard Mr. Premkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Jeyakumar, learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M.P. Senthil, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. It is admitted by the petitioner that the terminal benefits are payable to their deceased employee Vijayakumar and the third respondent is his wife, who is one of his legal heirs. But the only dispute which they have raised is that several creditors have filed suits against the deceased Vijayakumar for the recovery of loans granted by them to him and that the said order was already granted by the same Civil Courts restraining the petitioner from disbursing the terminal benefits to the deceased Vijayakumar. Both the authorities below have concurrently held that the terminal benefits payable to the employees cannot be attached in view of the statutory bar under section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Both the authorities below have concurrently held that the terminal benefits payable to the employees cannot be attached in view of the statutory bar under section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Further as seen from the impugned orders dated 6.8.2012 and 12.11.2013 passed by the first and second respondents respectively, no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner before the authorities below to prove that the attachment orders were passed by the Civil Courts restraining them from disbursing the terminal benefits including the gratuity amount payable to the deceased Vijayakumar. 6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent that under section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no gratuity amount payable to an employee can be attached in execution of any decree or order of Civil Court, Revenue or Criminal Court. When there is a statutory protection given to an employee under section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner ought to have paid the terminal benefits to its employee Vijayakumar, even if there was an attachment order passed by the Civil Courts restraining them from disbursing the gratuity amount. In the case on hand, there was an attachment order, despite the said fact that the petitioner has not disbursed the terminal benefits to its employee Vijayakumar. The authorities below have rightly considered all these factors and have rightly directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,57,770/- together with 10% interest from the date of death of Vijayakumar till the date of payment. 7. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the gratuity of Rs. 3,57,770/- together with 10% interest from the date of death of Vijayakumar, i.e., is from 24.6.2007 till the date of payment to the third respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.