ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

“.…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.8297/OP/2008 dated 11-11-2008 issued by the 1st respondent to the extent of withholding the retirement benefits (Gratuity and Leave Encashment) of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and also Governmental orders, consequently direct the respondents to release the withhold amount under impugned order...”

2. As per the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired from the service on 31-10-2008 as Deputy Controller in the office of the 1st respondent after attaining his superannuation. During his service an order was passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District Court at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad on 3-12-2007 in Execution Proceedings arising out of the Civil Suit No.28 of 2007 filed by the third party for recovery of the amount decreed, directing the 1st respondent to withhold an amount of Rs.1,56,398/- and ordered for recovery of his 1/3rd salary under section 60 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).

3. In pursuance of the same, an amount of Rs.46,200/- was recovered from the salary bill of the petitioner upto 31-10-2008 and after the retirement of the petitioner, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 11-11-2008 in reference No.8297/OP/2008 sanctioning retirement benefits to the petitioner. The order itself speaks about his pension and gratuity, family pension and commutation value of his pension.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that under the impugned order, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was accorded as Gratuity and out of the said amount an amount of Rs.98,279/- is detained towards the outstanding recovery of amount under court attachment order. Thus, the orders of the first respondent, dated 11-11-2008 is contrary to the provisions under section 60 of the C.P.C. and also to the Government Orders. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has died and subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased/petitioner were added as petitioners 2 to 5.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has specifically contended that the orders passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District Court is only for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,56,398/- and the order of the civil court in attaching the salary, during service cannot be extended after retirement, since the terminal benefits cannot be construed as a salary and the retirement benefits are exempted under section 60 of the C.P.C.

7. Section 60 (1) (g) of the C.P.C. reads as follows:

“60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree :-

(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf:

Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:- ....

(g) 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;”

8. According to the said provision, it is very clear that the property shall n