THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.2469 OF 2008 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.4.2008 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in E.P.No.30/2007 in O.S.No.214/2004, in refusing to extend the exemption to the gratuity amount under Section 60(1)(g) of C.P.C., relying on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in SATAYAVATHY vs. BHARATHI VIJAYAN AND ANOTHER[1], the present revision is filed by the judgment-debtors. 2. From the material on record it could be seen that the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.214/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram for recovery of money under a promissory note. The suit was decreed on 28.12.2006 against the legal heirs of Sodasi Victor, who was the original borrower. For realizing of the decretal amount, the decree holder filed the present E.P. seeking attachment of the gratuity amount of the decreased borrower. Relying on the judgment of the High Court of Kerla referred above, the trial court holding that the gratuity amount is attachable, directed the garnishee to send the amount to the court towards the satisfaction of the decree. 3. The amount that is now sought to be attached under the decree is the gratuity amount of the deceased. This court in GUDAPATI HANUMAIAH vs. Y.LAKSHMINARASAMMA & ORS.[2] had an occasion to consider similar issue, whether the gratuity amount of the deceased can be attached in execution proceedings. Considering Section 60 (1)(g) of C.P.C. and Sections 4 and 13 of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, this court held as under: “14. From a reading of above extracted Section 4(1) of the Act, it is clear that the gratuity is payable to an employee, on his termination of employment; or on his superannuation or; on his retirement or resignation, or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. Apropos to the present facts, the gratuity became payable to the legal representatives of the employee owing on his death as per clause ( c ) of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act. The second proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act, further makes it clear that in case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee and if no nomination has been made, other procedure has been prescribed. And protection from attachment of gratuity is provided under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 4 (1) and 13 of the Act, makes it clear that the gratuity, which will be paid to an employee, on his retirement or resignation; and in case of his death or disablement, due to accident or disease, to his nominees, is totally exempted from attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. In other words, it can be stated in unequivocal terms that the gratuity amount payable to an employee or to his legal representatives owing to his death or disablement due to accident or disease, is exempted from attachment. 4. Another learned single Judge of this court in D.VIMALA vs. CANARA BANK[3] held as under: “6. Apart from this, it is to be seen that Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that gratuity shall be payable to an employee (a) on his superannuation or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. It is clear from such provisions that gratuity shall be payable to an employee directly on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation under Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 4(1) and to his legal representatives in case of his death as per Clause (c) of Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The second proviso to Sec.4(1) provides that in case of the death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or if no nomination has been made, to his heirs. Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act provides that no gratuity payable in this Act….. shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any Court. In the present case, the gratuity amount laying with the Deputy Controller of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act to the deceased-second Judgment-Debtor during his life time and it became payable to his wife and other legal representatives after his death in view of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which was already referred to above. Inasmuch as the said gratuity amount is payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act to the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment-Debtor No.2 after his death, such amount will not lose its character as such gratuity amount is totally exempt from attachment in view of the protection granted under Section 13 of the Payment of gratuity Act. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, the gratuity amount which became payable to the present revision petitioner and the other legal representatives of the deceased-Judgment Debtor No.2 after his death and which was sought to be attached in the present case is not liable for attachment in view of the provisions of Section 60(1) (proviso)(g), C.P.C. and also Section 4 r/w section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the impugned orders of the lower Court cannot, therefore, be sustained.” 5. The Apex Court in the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA v. JYOTI CHIT FUND AND FINANCE[4] (3 supra) held as under: “9. . . . . A bare reading of Ss.3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act 1925, read with S.2(a) of that Act, will convince anyone that attachment of amounts bearing their description are prohibited. It will be a gross violation of legal mandates involving public interest, if, in the teeth of such injunction, an attachment should still be ordered by a Court. 10. . . Moreover, Section 60(1), provisos (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non-attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalled for. 11. We may state without fear of contradiction that provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to, retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee.. . . . . A bare reading of Radha Kissen (1969)3 SCC 28 = (AIR 1969 SC 762) makes the proposition feel- proof that so long as the amounts are Provident Fund dues then, till they are actually paid to the government servant who is entitled to it on retirement or otherwise, the nature of the dues is not altered. ” 6. In view of the above judgments of this Court and Apex Court, it is clear that amounts representing the provident fund and other compulsory deposits, which a Government servant is entitled to, are exempted from attachment until they are actually paid to the government servant who is entitled to on retirement or otherwise and the nature of the dues, is not altered. 7. Further, the judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to (1) supra, relied on by the court below, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as already noted above, a learned single Judge of this court in the decision cited 3 supra held that the decisions of the Apex Court were not brought to the notice of Their Lordships of Kerla High Court. Further, it is also to be seen that the relevant provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were also not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Hence, in these circumstances, the decision of the Kerala High Court, cannot be relied upon. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the revision is allowed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 08—02—2011 [1] AIR 1991 Kerla 377 [2] 2009(1) L.S. 338 [3] 1997(6) ALT 62 [4] AIR 1976 SC 1163