The judgment established the principle that compulsory deposits in a Provident Fund, as defined by the Provident Funds Act, 1897, are not liable to attachment, regardless of the employee's retirement or discharge from service.

JUDGMENT

Thomas William Richardson, J. - By our order, dated 26th January, 1922, Rule No. 515 of 1921 Raj Kumar Mookerjee v. W.J. Godfrey AIR 1922 C. 196 was made absolute on the footing that the amount standing to the credit of W.J. Godfrey in the State Railway Provident Institution was attachable at the instance of the then petitioner, Raj Kumar Mukherjee, in execution of a decree for money which he had obtained against Godfrey in the Sealdah Court of Small Causes. Inasmuch, however, as the rule was unopposed, there being no appearance for Godfrey and the Administrator of the Fund, to whom no notice of the Rule had been given, not being represented, liberty was expressly reserved to the latter to come in and move to have the order discharged. In pursuance of the liberty so reserved, the present Rule was obtained on behalf of the Secretary of State for India. At the hearing, the learned Advocate-General appeared for the present petitioner, the Secretary of State, and the learned Vakil, Mr. Mohendra Nath Roy, for the creditor.

2. There is no dispute that the amount standing in the Fund to Godfrey's credit was not attachable so long as he was employed as a servant of a State Railway. The question is whether the amount became attachable on his retirement from such service.

3. It now appears that the Rules regulating the General Provident. Fund to which we were referred on the former occasion, do not apply to the State Railway Provident, Institution, which is governed by the Rules contained in the State Railway Open Line Code, Volume II, App. I, Rule 10 of the General Fund Rules is therefore out of the way. The corresponding Rule 30 of the relevant Rules is otherwise framed and in the view we take gives rise to no difficulty. It is in these terms:

Neither compulsory deposits, nor bonuses, i.e., money added by Government to compulsory deposits, nor the interest thereon standing at the credit of a depositor, whether in actual service, discharged or deceased, can be attached by a Court of Law, but voluntary deposits and the interest thereon standing at the credit of a depositor on any given date are free to attachment on that date.

4. It is conceded that the amount at Godfrey's credit consists entirely of deposits which, when they were made, were 'compulsory deposits' within the meaning of this rule and of the Provident Funds Act. There is no question of any voluntary deposits.

5. As to the word 'discharged' it does not necessarily mean 'dismissed.' It is wide enough to include the case of a servant who has been permitted to retire or take his discharge.

6. The question is whether Rule 30 is in accordance with the law on the subject.

7. The CPC Section 60(1)(k) exempts from liability to attachment "all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1897, for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment."

8. That leaves the matter to be controlled by the Provident Funds Act and Rule 30 seems merely to express the draftsman's view of the result of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act IX of 1897 as amended by Act V of 1903). The question turns on that sub-section the meaning of which, apart from any difficulty as to the term 'compulsory deposits,' is clear enough. "Compulsory deposits," it says, "in any Government or Railway. Provident Fund shall not be liable to any attachment under any decree or order of a Court of Justice in respect of any debt or liability incurred by a subscriber to, or depositor of, any such Fund and, neither the Official, Assignee nor a Receiver appointed under Chapter XX of the CPC shall be entitled to, or have any claim on any such compulsory deposit." The words are quite plain and general. No "compulsory deposits" are attachable.

9. But then it is argued that these deposits with which we are concerned, though they were compulsory deposits when they were made and so long as Godfrey continued in the Railway serv