N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.- 1. This Court granted special leave to appeal in this case on the Government agreeing to pay the costs of the respondents in respect of the appeal in any event.

2. The decree-holder was a lady named Hira Devi. The judgment-debtor was one Ram Grahit Singh, who retired on 31st January, 1947, as a head clerk in the Dead Letter Office, Calcutta. A money decree was obtained against him on 30th July, 1948. On 1st February, 1949, a Receiver was appointed for collecting the moneys standing to the credit of the judgment-debtor in a Provident Fund with the Postal authorities. The Union of India intervened with an application dated 20th September, 1949, for setting aside the order appointing the Receiver.

3. Mr. Justice Bannerjee dismissed the application of the Union of India, holding that a Receiver could be appointed for collecting the fund. On appeal, Trevor Harries, C.J., and Sinha, J., upheld his view.

4. From the facts stated in the petition filed by the Union of India before the High Court, it appears that a sum of Rs. 1,394-13-1, represents arrears of pay and allowances due to the judgment-debtor and a sum of Rs. 1,563 is the compulsory deposit in his Provident Fund account. Different considerations will apply to the two sums, though in the lower Court the parties seem to have proceeded on the footing that the entire sum was a "compulsory deposit" within the meaning of the Provident Funds Act, 1925.

5. The main question to be decided is whether a Receiver can be appointed in execution in respect of Provident Fund money due to the judgment-debtor.

6. Compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925) applies are exempt from attachment and sale under section 60(k), Civil Procedure Code.

7. "Compulsory deposit" is thus defined in section 2(a) of the Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925):

"Compulsory deposit means a subscription to, or deposit in a Provident Fund which under the rules of the Fund, is not, until the happening of some specified contingency repayable on demand otherwise than for the purpose of the payment of premia in respect of a policy of life insurance (or the payment of subscriptions or premia in respect of a family pension fund), and includes any contribution and any interest or increment which has accrued under the rules of the fund on any such subscription, deposit, contribution, and also any such subscription, deposit, contribution, interest or increment remaining to the credit of the subscriber or depositor after the happening of any such contingency."

8. Such a deposit cannot be assigned or charged and is not liable to any attachment. Section 3(1) of the said Act provides:

3.(1) "A compulsory deposit in any Government or Railway Provident Fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor, and neither the Official Assignee nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, shall be entitled to, or have any claim on any such compulsory deposit."

9. It is obvious that the prohibition against the assignment or the attachment of such compulsory deposits is based on grounds of public policy. Where the interdiction is absolute, to allow a judgment-creditor to get at the fund indirectly by means of the appointment of a receiver would be to circumvent the statute. That such a frustration of the very object of the legislation should not be permitted was laid down by the Court of Appeal as early as 1886 in the case of Lucas v. Harris,1 where the question arose with reference to a pension payable to two officers of. Her Majesty’s Indian army. Section 141 of the Army Act, 1881, provided.

"Every assignment of, and every charge on, and every agreement to assign or charge any. . . . pension payable to any officer or soldier of Her Majesty’s f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document