Amount of pension of employee can be attached in execution after the amount was credited in Bank account of employee - It loses all the characteristics of pension

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Before :- B. Prakash Rao, J.
C.R.P. No. 160 of 2003. D/d. 17.10.2003

S. Nagappa - Petitioner
Versus
K.P. Hanumappa - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. I. Venkata Prasad, Advocate.

ORDER

B. Prakash Rao, J. - The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, seeks to assail the orders in E.A. No. 507 of 2002 in O.S. No. 931 of 1998,
dated 12.11.2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, dismissing the application filed under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to raise the attachment of the petitioner's pension amount.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The respondent/decree holder having obtained a decree for recovery of money, filed the Execution Petition and sought for attachment of the Bank Account of the petitioner/Judgment debtor. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner in the application filed seeking exemption under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code is that, the amount as lying in his Savings bank account represents Pension and therefore, the same cannot be attached or proceeded against as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Jyothi Chit Fund and Finance and other, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1163. Therefore, he sought for raising of the attachment.

4. The said application was contested inter alia on the ground that the amount as now lying in the account, does lose the characteristics of pension and therefore, it is liable for attachment.

5. Considering the submissions made, the Court below rejected the application on the ground that the amount as lying does not continue to have the effect of pension.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount which is lying in his account represents the pension which is liable for exemption under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code and since the said amount has been deposited directly by the employer, it continues to have the incidence of pension only.

7. The said contention was sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondent herein stating that once the amount has already been paid in the hands of the petitioner/Judgment debtor, the exemption would not be applicable.

8. On considering the submission made on either side and also on perusal of the record, there is no dispute to the basic fact that the respondents/decree holder has laid the execution in pursuance of the decree obtained for recovery of money and sought for attachment of the amount lying in the Saving Bank account of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said amount in fact represents the pension and therefore, it is liable for exemption. There is no dispute to the fact that any pension amount is not liable for attachment. As held in the aforesaid decision (supra), the Provident Fund contributions and the pensionery benefits of the Government servant cannot be attached till they are received by the employee and the Government has locus standi to object to the attachment of the said amount. Whereas in this case, the amount is not lying with the Government or under its control and the said amount has already been sent and deposited in the savings account of the petitioner/Judgment debtor. Therefore, the payment is already made and the amount stands in the hands of the Judgment debtor.

9. Across the Bar, the scheme of payment of pension through banks under the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 was sought to be placed reliance. As per the said scheme, it is contemplated that the payment of pensionary benefits to the State Government pensioners is provided for and a regular procedure is contemplated, wherein the pensioner have to open a Savings Bank Account and on intimation thereof, the amount is directly being deposited in the said account.

10. On a reading of the entire scheme, it is quite apparent that under the said process, virtually the amount of pension is being credited in the accounts of the respective employees and simultaneously debited from the Government account. Thus, there is a payment by the Government and receipt by the employee. Once such payment is made, as held in the aforesaid decision, it cannot be said that the Government still holds any trust. In Union of India v. Radhakissen Agarwalla and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 762, considering the case whether the process of payment was still at the stage of cheque and the Apex Court held that itself would not amount to be the payment and therefore, an objection can validly be raised.

11. Having regard to the facts of the case and also the principles laid down in both the cases, the payment made into Bank account of the subscriber, is a payment to the employee. Neither the bank is the agent of the employer nor the account is being held by the employer. Both the account and the bank belongs to the employee. Therefore, there is direct and complete payment in favour of the employee. Thus the amount loses all the characteristics and incidence of the pension and thus loses the effect of exemption as provided for under Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence the lower Court has rightly dismissed the application.

12. In the circumstances, I do not find any merits in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.

------------------------------------------------------

This judgment can be accessed with this short url - http://g8.geekupd8.com/602