IMPORTANT POINT
Retirement benefits, including commuted pension, are protected from attachment under Section 60(g) of C.P.C., while earned leave encashment is not.

JUDGMENT :

The present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 09.04.2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2017 in O.S.No.1023 of 2012 passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. The petitioner is defendant No.5. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and a suit O.S.No.1023 of 2012 was filed for recovery of money against the petitioner and others and the suit was decreed on 30.06.2016.

3. For realization of the amount under the decree, Respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.4 of 2017 and sought for attachment of retirement benefits of the petitioner, who worked as Khalasi in South Central Railways. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that retirement benefits cannot be attached under section 60 (g) of C.P.C.

4. The Executing Court vide order dated 09.04.2018 directed attachment of the amount of the petitioner lying in Syndicate Bank, Samarangam Chowk, I Town, Vijayawada under the heads of leave encashment, arrears of salary and pension commutation at a tune of Rs.7,27,044/-. Hence, the present revision.

5. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Devalraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Guru Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amounts are retirement benefits and such amounts could not have been attached and further contention was that commutation pension as well as leave encashment cannot be attached. He relied on a judgment of this Court in T.Sakuntala v. B.Satya Murthy and others, 1999 (2) ALD 2. In the case, this Court after referring to the provisions of Pension Act, 1871 and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the commuted pension in the hands of pensioner also has the same protection as the pension and such amount cannot be attached in terms of Section 60 (g) C.P.C. The petitioner also filed the details of terminal benefits paid to the petitioner and the same was filed on 26.04.2024 along with a memo. In the said details, lumpsum commuted pension of the petitioner was Rs.7,37,460/- out of the total amount of 14,46,055/-. The other components of retirement benefits is gratuity of Rs.6,31,125/- among other major amounts.

7. In the light of the judgment of this Court and the fact that the commuted pension as well as gratuity being not attachable, the order of the trial Court in attaching the pension, commutation cannot be sustained. It is to be noted that there are no arrears of salary deposited and the question of attachment under that head does not arise. Under Section 60(1) (g) of C.P.C., stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government are not liable to attachment. Earned leave encashment is not a stipend or gratuity so as to fall under Section 60 (1) (g) of C.P.C. Therefore, the contention that earned leave encashment cannot be attached, is wholly unsustainable in law. Similar view was taken by this Court in Bezwada Yohanu v. Konangi Radha Krishna, 2018 (4) ALT 628.

8. Therefore, the impugned order is modified restricting attachment only to the extent of amount under the head “leave encashment” and the attachment of amounts under the heads of “commuted pension” is set-aside. The leave encashment amounts as per the memo filed by petitioner are Rs.8,925/- and Rs.12,113/- (totaling to Rs.21,038/-). These amounts shall be deposited to the credit of the suit O.S.No.1023 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and thereafter the respondent/decree holder is permitted to withdraw the said amount.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.