The main legal point established is that pensions are exempt from attachment under the Pensions Act, 1871, and cannot be attached once received by the employee.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - The petitioner by way of present revision has challenged the order 13.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridkot, vide which 2/3rd pension of the petitioner in execution of a decree has been attached by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kanvar v. M/s. Ram Ricchhpal Banarsi Dass, 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 719.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent-wife filed a suit for maintenance against the petitioner-husband. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the respondent-wife was allowed by the first Appellate Court and the Regular Second Appeal filed against the said order was admitted and 50% amount of the decree has been ordered to be stayed.

3. In order to execute the decree, the respondent-wife filed an execution application for recovery of Rs. 36,000/- as maintenance and during the pendency of the said execution application, she filed an application for attachment of the pension of the petitioner or to send him to civil imprisonment.

4. The petitioner filed objections to the said application which were dismissed by the learned executing Court by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ram Kanvars case (supra), wherein this Court was pleased to hold as under :-

"The judgment-debtor-petitioner has miserably failed to show as to how any of his stipends and gratuities payable to pensioners of the Government has been ordered to be attached. There is neither any irregularity nor any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. Therefore, the revision petition is wholly mis-conceived and is, thus, liable to be dismissed."

5. Mr. Surinder Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the said judgment of this Court cannot be said to be laying down the correct law as this Court while passing the said order had not taken note of the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1871 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He refers to Section 11 of the Act, which reads as under :-

"11. 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,

and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance

shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for, any demand against the pension, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.

This section applied also to pensions granted or continued after the separation of Burma from India, by the Government of Burma."

6. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of the Act, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Wing Commander R.R. Hingormani (Retd.), AIR 1987 SC 808, has been pleased to lay down as under:-

"9. In the premises, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court and it has to be reversed. Nonetheless, the writ petition must still succeed for another reason. It is somewhat strange that the High Court should have failed to apply its mind to the most crucial question involved, namely, that the Government was not competent to recover the amount of Rs. 20,482.78 alleged to be due and payable towards damages on account of unauthorised use and occupation of the flat from the commuted pension payable to the respondent which was clearly against the terms of Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 which reads as follows"

"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, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any C