IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1825

7 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pritam Ram …….Petitioner Versus The Managing Director Himachal Pradesh Stafte Coperative Bank Ltd and Ors.

… Respondents ______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate.

For the Responde nts: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, CAdvocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2, 3 and 6.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that pension account of the petitioner could not have been attached for recovery of loan amount availed by one late Sh. Mahavir Singh,

for whom petitioner herein had furnished guarantee. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Vide order dated 26.11.2025, this Court called upon learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank to have instructions qua aforesaid aspect of the matte.r. Though, respondents have filed reply, but same is conspicuously silent with regard to authority, if any, of thef respondent to order attachment of pension account of the petitioner for recovery of loan amount. t

3. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior counsel, while referring to the reply, attempted to argue that since guarantor i.e. petitioner herein has given undertaking that in the event of default, if any, in repayment of loan availed by late Sh. Surjeet Kumhar, amount can be deducted from his pension, petitioner is gestopped at this stage to claim that pension account of the ipetitioner could not have been attached.

4. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank (2009) 1 SCC 376, has held that pension and gratuity of the petitioner cannot be attached or withheld for appropriation of a decree of any Civil Court.

“5. The Executing Court allowed the Bank's application and ordered attachment of the appellant's Fixed Deposit Receipts, hereinafter referred to as "FDRs". The appellant moved the High Court against the order of attachment and the High Court while allowing the appellant's application, directed the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in the light of the specific directions given in the judgment and decree dated 19th December, 1994, for recovery of the decretal amount. .

6. The Executing Court by its order dated 1st November, 2002, directed release of the appellant's F.D.Rs and the pension amount with a further direction that the hypothecated Matador was to be auctioned first in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 11 of the Judgment dated 19th December, 1994. The Executing Court also took the view that amounts paid towards gratuity and pension could not be attached in view of the provisions of proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "the Code".

34. We also agree with Ms . Shobha that the High Court could not have gone behind tthe decree in the execution proceedings and the alteration in the manner of recovery of the decretal amount was erroneous and cannot be sustained.

35. We also agree with Ms. Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case (supra), where a contrary view was taken, the consistent view taken thereafter support the contention that merely because of the fact that gratuity and pensionary benefits had been received by the appellant in cash, it could no longer be identified as such retiral