IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3990 of 2011(Z) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SRI.C.GOPALAN, S/O KEERAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RTD DRIVER, OFFICE OF SSPO'S, CALICUT DIVISION, CALICUT - 673 003. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF POST, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, CALICUT POSTAL DIVISION, CALICUT-673 001. 4. SENIOR POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE, CALICUT - 673 001. BY ADV. SMT.GOVINDA P.RENUKADEVI, CGSC THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPCAT 3990/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.11.2011 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C.10/2011-12 DT.14.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DT.MARCH 2011 ISSUED BY THE AUTORIZED OFFICER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27.01.,2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLEADING IN OA 1017/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MA.1066/2011 FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT. EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.29.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT) No. 3990 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P1 order, whereby the request made by the petitioner before the CAT, to stay the disbursal of any amount forming part of his retirement benefits, pursuant to the prohibitory orders issued by the revenue authorities is not favourably dealt with. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the Original Petition is that the petitioner was serving as a Driver in the Postal Department, who had availed a loan from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises(KSFE for short). It is stated that the petitioner is still to satisfy the liability to the KSFE and that, he had already been served with a demand notice in this regard. There is a dispute with regard to the quantum as well. 3. The petitioner was on the verge of retirement, when a prohibitory order was issued, whereby the amounts O.P.(CAT) No. 3990 of 2011 -:2:- payable to the petitioner by way of retirement benefits have been ordered to be appropriated to the extent as covered by the demand notice and the prohibitory order, which were sought to be challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1017 of 2011. When the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal it was observed that, the KSFE was a necessary party and it was accordingly, that notice was ordered to the KSFE to be impleaded as an additional respondent. However, with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for granting stay, it was observed by the Tribunal that, the applicant would be at liberty to move a separate Miscellaneous Application for stay, if so advised, once service of notice is completed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has merely issued notice without impleading the KSFE in the party array and once the KSFE does not choose to enter appearance, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. It is also stated that the retirement O.P.(CAT) No. 3990 of 2011 -:3:- benefits payable to the petitioner such as Gratuity and Pension are not liable to be attached under any circumstances. 5. After hearing the petitioner, we note that, the provisions with regard to the protection of gratuity and pension are also subject to some exception as provided under Rules 71 to 73 of the CCS Pension Rules and that, the amount can be appropriated from such amounts payable to the employee, if it is in respect of realisation of loss to the employer. So also, it is possible that the amount could be appropriated from the Gratuity, if an undertaking has been given by the party concerned in this regard to the creditors like the KSFE. No material is before us to arrive at such an inference or otherwise and it is in the said circumstance, that the actual position was sought to be ascertained by the Tribunal by issuing notice to the KSFE, who was held as a proper party. It is always open for the petitioner to bring the position for further consideration before the Tribunal, once service of notice is complete. O.P.(CAT) No. 3990 of 2011 -:4:- We find no ground to interfere with the matter at this stage. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to th rights and liberties to the petitioner to pursue the matter before CAT. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb