Gratuity payable to a deceased employee is not liable to attachment against a decree for recovery of money passed against the heirs of the employee.

( 1 ) THE short but interesting question of law arises in this appeal as to whether gratuity which was payable to an employee, who has died, is liable to be attached against decree for recovery of money passed against heirs of the employee and the decree was executable only against the estate of the employee in the hands of his heirs.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that Krishan Gopal, decree holder, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1800. 00 against Ramwati, Krishna Devi, Jasoda Bai and Baldev, daughters and son of Lakshmi Chand on the averments that Lakshmi Chand (since deceased) had borrowed Rs. 1450. 00 on April 3, 1964 and in consideration of which he executed a pronote agreeing to pay interest @ 12% per annum. This suit was contested by the defendants but was decreed on July 27, 1967, by Shri Shamsher Singh, Sub-Judge, with the direction that the decree would be executable against the estate inherited by the defendants from Lakshmi Chand, deceased.

( 3 ) THE execution application was filed by the decree holder seeking attachment of dues of Lakshmi Chand in the hands of Delhi Cloth and General Mills where the deceased was employed which included provident fund and gratuity. A sum of Rs. 12321- was received from the Manager, Delhi Cloth and General Mills, as balance of gratuity which was payable to the heirs of the employee Lakshmi Chand. This amount was paid to the decree holder in part satisfaction of the decree. This amount was received by the decree holder from the court on May 31, 1968. It is to be mentioned here that during the pendency of the suit itself, an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, had been moved by the plaintiff-decree holder seeking attachment before judgment the provident fund, bonus, gratuity and other dues of Lakshmi Chand in the hands of his employer. The attachment before judgment was issued vide order dated June 2, 1966, but on July 26, 1967, the court passed the following order :-

"heard. The Provident Fund and Gratuity are not attachable. This attachment is withdrawn. Orders be issued accordingly. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has no objection. "the attachment was at that time withdrawn. In respect of the amount of the decree, the decree holder had filed another application for execution seeking attachment of house No. 521, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Objections were filed in the said execution by the appellant pleading that the said house was not attachable as the same being the main residential house occupied by the appellant. In that objection petition the appellants also pleaded that to obtain Rs. 1232. 00, the amount of gratuity payable to their predecessor by his employer, which was not liable to attachment and the appellants were entitled to have the refund of that amount. Issues were framed on these pleadings but, however, the execution application came to be dismissed in default on April 7, 1966. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application praying that the decree holder be required to refund the sum of Rs. 1232. 00 which had been received by the decree holder under a wrongful attachment of the amount made by the court. This application was contested by the decree holder but was dismissed by the Lower Court vide order February 17, 1978. The appeal filed was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. vide order dated January 14, 1980 and this second appeal has been brought by the appellants seeking to set aside the orders of the Lower Court and getting the relief of refund of the said gratuity amount. The facts indeed are not in dispute. The gratuity payable to Lakshmi Chand was attached and was paid to the decree holder in execution of the decree. The question which arises for decision is whether the said amount was attachable in law or not ? Section 60 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, makes it clear that the provident fund and gratuities allowed to the pensioners of the Government, or of a local authority or of any other employer