"CR"

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The respondent retired from the service of BSNL. As stated in the impugned decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, different attachment orders/prohibitory orders were issued either by the civil courts or by the competent authorities under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 requiring the respondent's employer BSNL and the disbursement officer to satisfy the demands covered by those attachment orders/prohibitory orders. Those prohibitory orders/attachment orders ran to a total amount more than the Death- Cum-Retirement-Benefit that could be released to the respondent at the time of his retirement. The Communication Accounts Officer(Pension) of the Office of the CCA, Trivandrum issued a sanction order for payment of gratuity and commuted value of pension after withholding the total amount covered by the attachment orders/prohibitory orders. The respondent challenged it by filing a writ petition before this Court which, in turn, was transferred to the CAT when BSNL was brought under the jurisdiction of that Tribunal.

2. The plea of the respondent was that the order withholding gratuity is illegal and no dues other than Government dues are recoverable from gratuity or commuted value of pension in terms of the provisions of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 read with the Government of India orders issued thereunder and that no gratuity or commuted value of pension is liable for attachment in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The establishment, in opposition, contended that amounts are withheld in view of the various attachment orders/prohibitory orders issued by the civil courts and by the competent authorities under the RR Act, and the DCRG and commuted value of pension due to the officer is less than the total amount covered by the attachment orders/prohibitory orders.

4. With the aforesaid, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the question whether the establishment was legally permitted to withhold DCRG and commuted value of pension. It proceeded on the basis that recovery from DCRG and commuted value of pension can be done only in terms of the provisions of the CCS(Pension) Rules and the judgments of the Apex Court in that regard. The Tribunal accordingly held that the recoveries/attachments are not in conformity with the law and thereby held that the establishment could not have recovered or withheld any gratuity or commuted value of pension on account of dues other than Central Government dues. The establishment is directed to release the withheld gratuity and the commuted value of pension to the officer with 9% interest from the date of his retirement till the date of payment.

5. The establishment is before us challenging the aforesaid decision as one without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the establishment and the learned counsel for the respondent officer.

7. The learned counsel for the establishment argued that the action taken by it and its officers were strictly in conformity with the prohibitory orders/attachment orders issued by the civil courts as also by the authorities under the RR Act and that in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the RR Act, the establishment was bound to obey such attachment orders/prohibitory orders. It was also argued that if the establishment or its officers had violated the orders of attachment/prohibitory orders issued by the civil courts, they would have necessarily invited penal action and further proceedings, including for contempt, personally against its officers. The learned counsel for the establishment further pointed out that without moving the competent civil courts and having the attachments lifted, the officer could not have sought for any direction from the Tribunal by mulcting the responsibility for non-disbursement of DCRG and commuted value of pension, on the establishment.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent officer