The amounts due to a government employee as gratuity, family benefit fund, and group insurance are exempt from attachment under Section 60 C. P. C., except for the amount due towards gratuity in the hands of the legal representatives of the deceased employee.

R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two civil revision petitions are filed by the respective petitioners questioning the orders of the Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem who dismissed their petitions filed for attachment before judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in C. R. P. No. 3994/94 is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 309/94 and he filed the said suit against the respondents herein who are the wife and children of one P. Amrutha Rao who had borrowed some amount from the petitioner under a pronote and subsequently died without discharging the debt and leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The suit was, therefore, filed against the respondents for recovery of the pronote amount. He also filed i. A. 1668/1994 under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. seeking attachment before judgment of the amounts due by way of gratuity, family benefit fund and group insurance amount to the deceased P. Amrutha Rao from the Principal of the government College in which the deceased was working during his life time. After the death of P. Amrutha Rao, the respondents became entitled to receive such amounts. They contested the said petition filed for attachment before judgment contending that such amounts like gratuity, family benefit fund and group Insurance amounts cannot be attached in view of the relevant provisions of Sec. 60 C. P. C. The learned District Munsif accepted such contentions and dismissed the petition holding that such amounts are exempted from attachment under the relevant provisions of Sec. 60 C. P. C. The present revision petition is, therefore, filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit questioning such orders of the lower Court.

( 3 ) C. R. P. No. 3942/94 is filed by the petitioner therein questioning the similar orders passed by the lower Court in I. A. 1667/94 in O. S. No 308/94 which was also filed against the same respondents seeking attachment before judgment of the same amounts. As the point involved for consideration in both the revision petitions is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 4 ) THE point for consideration is whether the amounts found due to the respondent representing Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund and Group Insurance amounts are not liable for attachment in view of the provisions of Sec. 60 C. P. C. and whether there are any valid reasons to interfere with the orders of the lower court?

( 5 ) THE amounts which were sought to be attached before judgment in both the revision petitions represent the amounts which were due to be paid to the deceased P. Amrutha Rao towards Gratuity, Family Benefit Fund and Group insurance amounts. Section 60 (1) (g)C. P. C. provides that stipend and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government are not liable for attachment. Similarly, under the provisions of Sec. 60 (l) (kkk) which was introduced by way of amendment in our State in the year 1979, the amounts payable under the A. P. State Government Employees Family Benefit Fund Rules are also not liable for attachment. In view of such provisions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners also admitted that such amounts representing Gratuity and Family benefit Fund are not liable for attachment in case the attachment is sought for against the concerned Government servant when he is alive. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that Group Insurance amounts found due to the Government employee are not exempted under Sec. 60 C. P. C. as no specific provision is made under any of the clauses in sub-section (1) of sec. 60 C. P. C. , and as such, the amount due towards Group Insurance is liable for attachment even when the attachment is sought for during the life time of the concerned Government servant. But this contention cannot however be accepted. Till 31-10-1984 all Government Employees had to compulsorily contribute the specified amount every month from their salary towards Family benefit Fund and the said scheme was changed into Group Insur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document