Contributions to the General Provident Fund and the Employees' Welfare Fund cannot be excluded in determining the attachable portion of the judgment-debtor's salary under Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. The decree-holder sought execution of the money decree in his favour by attachment of the judgment-debtor's salary to the extent of Rs. 50/-. The same was allowed by the lower court and the judgment-debtor has come up in revision.

2. As per E. A. No 1048 of 1977 the decree-holder stated that the salary of the judgment-debtor is Rs. 552/-. It is not contended before me that the same is in any way incorrect. In fact, the judgment-debtor has along with this revision petition produced a certificate issued by the Electrical Section, Mannar and signed by the Assistant Engineer of that Section showing that his total salary is Rs. 555.96. The said certificate also shows that a deduction of Rs. 59/- is made as remittance to the General Provident Fund and a sum of Re. 1/- is paid to the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees' Welfare Fund. On that basis it is contended that the net total that the petitioner receives as salary is Rs. 495.96 The further submission is that of this the first Rs 400/- cannot be attached and of the remaining Rs. 95.96, 2/3 thereof cannot be attached. The argument as aforesaid proceeds on the basis of S.60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The order for attachment at the rate of Rs. 50/- from the petitioner's salary is therefore impugned.

3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have the sum of Rs. 60/- remitted to his General Provident Fund and the Employees' Welfare Fund excluded in reckoning his "salary" under S.60(1)(i) of the Code, as contended for by his learned counsel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Explanations II and III to S.60 of the Code to contend as aforesaid. He also relies on clause (k) of S.60(1) of the Code.

5. Explanation II aforesaid says that 'salary' means the total monthly emoluments, excluding any allowance declared exempt from attachment under the provisions of clause (1), derived by a person from his employment whether on duty or no leave. Explanation III aforesaid provides as to which Government is the proper Government in a given instance, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, that can exercise the power to notify as envisaged by clause (1). S.60 (1) (k) exempts from attachment all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act 1925 for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act as not to be liable to attachment. I do not think that any of the provisions read above is of any assistance to the petitioner to contend as stated in the preceding paragraph.

6. Explanations II and III are of no assistance to the petitioner in so far as there is no notification under clause (I) in the official gazette declaring remittances to the General Provident Fund' or to the KSEB. Employees' Welfare Fund to be exempt from attachment by the appropriate Government, namely, the State Government. Clause (k) of S.60 (1) of the Code also is of no assistance to the petitioner to claim that the sum of Rs. 60/-payable by him as monthly contribution to the General Provident Fund and the, Employees' Welfare Fund, is to be excluded in determining his salary. No doubt, that section provides that all compulsory deposits and other sums in any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 for the time being applies or such sums derived from any such fund to which the aforesaid Act applies would be exempt from attachment to the extent that Act declares that it is so. What the aforesaid clause provides is that an amount deposited and which forms part of the Provident Fund cannot be attached and not that the monthly contribution payable under the Provident Funds Act 1925 cannot be taken into account to reckon the salary as mentioned in S.60 (1) (i) of the Code. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that salary mentioned in S.60 (1) (i) of the Code has to be understood as exclusive of the amounts not-attac