Amounts payable to an employee at the time of retirement are exempt from attachment.

The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the amount due as provident fund, leave salary, gratuity etc., to the deceased employee can be attached in the hands of the employer pending the suit for recovery of money filed against the legal representatives of such employee for amounts borrowed by him.

2.One Mariappan is alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the first respondent. Promissory note in evidence of the said loan is alleged to be executed on 20.10.2002. Mariappan died on 31.12.2002 and the petitioners are his legal heirs. The first respondent filed O.S.No.95 of 2003 for recovery of money. Pending suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.224 of 2003 for attachment before judgment of the amounts aforesaid. The other respondents are the Railways-the garnishees. An order of attachment was passed, against which this revision has been filed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these amounts cannot be attached and in support of his contention, he relied on (i)Percy Wood v.Samuel (AIR (30) 1943 Nagpur 333), (ii) Thaj Mahomed v. Balaji Singh (AIR 1934 Madras 173)(DB), (iii) Union of India v. J.C.Fund & Finance (AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163)(DB), (iv) Lachmi Narayan v. Umaid Rai (AIR 1923 Oudh 21), (v) Nadirshaw v.Times of India (AIR 1931 Bombay 300) (DB) and (vi) Secretary of State for India v.Raj Kumar (AIR 1923 Calcutta 585). The learned counsel also denied the borrowal and raised several points in defence against of the suit claim. Those facts are not necessary for deciding this question and are not dealt with.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways- respondents 2 to 4 also attacked the order of attachment in view of Section 60 CPC, Section 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act, Section 11 of Pensions Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act which exempt these amounts from attachment.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the amount due as gratuity to the deceased employee and payable to the legal representatives of the deceased is not exempted from attachment, since the property that was once held by the Department, became a debt to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased and ceased to have the character of gratuity. Since it is only a debt in the hands of the Department, there is nothing wrong in attaching the property for realisation of the amounts. Reliance was placed on Sathyavathi v.Bhargavi (AIR 1991 Kerala 377), where it was held that the amount due as gratuity to deceased employee-Judgment debtor and payable to his legal representatives is not exempt from attachment.

6. Section 60(g) CPC contain exempts the following amounts from attachment:-

"stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government (or of a local authority or of any other employer), or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by (the Central Government or the State Government) in this behalf, and political pension;"

Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act reads thus:-

"Protection of gratuity---No gratuity payable under this Act (and no gratuity payable to employee employed in any establishment factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under Section 5") shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court."

Section 11 of the Pensions Act reads thus:-

"Exemption of pension from attachment- --No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance."

Sections 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act protects the provident fund deposit from being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. Section 10(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is as follows:-

"Any amount standing to the