( 1 ) IN execution of the decree obtained by the revision-petitioner against the 1st respondent, he filed a petition to attach the retiral benefits to be credited to Account No. 45103 of Andhra Bank as per the despatch older of the District Treasuey Officer, Ongole, which was dismissed by the order undei levision.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since 1st respondent is not a government servant, and is an employee in a private college, he cannot by invoking section 60 C. P. C. claim exemption from attachment of the retiral benefits, by placing strong reliance on N. VENUGOPALA RAO V. L. I. C. OF INDIA, 1995 2 ALT 70 (D. B. ). and md. SABEER ALI v. VANDANA CHIT FUNDS, 2000 1 ALD 261.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is that since the retiral benefits to be received by the 1st respondent are his pension and gratuity, and since gratuity which is governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act), is exempt from attachment in view of Section 13 of the Act, and in view of the ratio in T. PRABHAKAR RAO v. REGISTRAR OF co-OP. SOCIETIES, 2003 6 ALT 97. the order undei invision needs no inter ference by this Court.

( 4 ) IN my considered opinion, both the decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, arising under section 60 (1) (i) C. P. C, have no application to the facts of this case as they relate to quantum of salary that can be attached and since salary of the 1st respondent is not the subject matter of attachment.

( 5 ) IN N. VENUGOPALA RAO case (1 supra) it was held that benefit of Section 60 (1) (i) CPC does not apply to the employees of life Insurance Corporation of India and applies only to government servants, servants of a railway company or local authority. MD. SABEER ALI case (2 supra) also relates to the quantum of salary that is liable for attachment

( 6 ) REGARD being had to the definition of employer in Section 2 (f) of the Act, and the language employed in Section 13 of the Act, 1 entertain a doubt whether 1st respondent can be said to be an employee in an establishment covered by the Act, because a plain reading of the definition of employer made me feel that the act applies only to industrial or commercial establishments where manufacturing processes etc. , is taking place. But, since a division. Bench of Bombay High Court in P. D. RAO DEO v. PRI. , st. P. C. H. SCHOOL and ORS. , 1997 2 LLJ 1050. held that a teacher in an unaided educational institution is covered by the Act which is a piece of beneficial legislation, petitioner also would be entitled to the benefit of the said Act in respect of gratuity.

( 7 ) BY relying on the observations in UNION OF INDIA v. WING com. R. R. HINGORANI, 1987 2 SCJ 60 the Court below held that petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. But in the very same decision the apex Court observed as follows. "we may state without fear of contradiction that provident fund amounts, pensions and oilier compulsory deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to. retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee. " (underlining mine) therefore, so long as pension, gratuity etc. , are not received by the beneficiary only they are exempt from attachment in view of section 60 (1) (g)CPC. When once they reach the hands of the employee concerned, the exemption ceases to operate.

( 8 ) THEREFORE, the relief of attachment of the amount lying with the District Treasury Officer, Ongole, cannot be graned but the amount lying to the credit of the 1st respondent in the Andhra bank Account No. 45103 can be attached.

( 9 ) THEREFORE, with a direction to attach the Andhra Bank account No. 45103 of the 1st respondent in the Andhra Bank at ongole, this petition is disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document