IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:01.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.20616 of 2008 1.Vasantha 2.Shanthi 3.Shankar 4.Sekar 5.Selvi 6.Jagan 7.Vasanthan ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 3.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 4.The Headmaster, Government Nandanar Girls Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 5.The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 5th respondent issued in No.AG(A&E) PEN PO9/2/R- 21-283/RTD/2003-2004/2283 and in No.AG (A&E)/PEN PO9/2/R-21- 283/RTD/2003-2004/2227, dated 25.06.2003 and quash the same, issue a direction to the respondents to release Rs.3,49,054/- with interest at 18% per annum and fix the pension and other terminal benefits as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ per the pay fixed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 06.03.1996 issued in No.9/77426/95 and pass such further orders. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondent :Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, GA for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Naganathan, GA (Edn.) for R4 Mr.T.Ravikumar for R5 ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allowed to retire from the service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000. Till the petitioner was in service, the respondents never thought of working out the accounts of the petitioner. Only three years from the date of retirement, namely, on 25.06.2003, the recover order came to be passed seeking to recover the petitioner's gratuity and pension, which are explicitly barred by Section 60(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had at any point of time misrepresented for enhancing the payment of revised scale of pay. While summing up his argument, by relying upon heavily on Section 60(g), the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, by looking at any angle, cannot be legally sustainable in law. 2. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner though retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000, he has already given a statement that if his revision of scale of pay is found fixed wrongly, the same could be recovered from the petitioner. Only on that basis, the impugned recovery order came to be passed on 25.06.2003. Again, it was submitted that the recovery order had already given effect to. Therefore, if the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned recovery order, the same will cause great prejudice to the respondents department. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. It is admittedly true that after the retirement of the petitioner on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000, the respondents did not take up any steps to recover the amount sought to be recovered as per the impugned recovery order dated 25.06.2003. Secondly, the recovery order dated 25.06.2003 seeking to recover only from the petitioner's Provident Fund contribution and pensions, is explicitly barred by Section 60(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is extracted as under:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree- ......... 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 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 pensions; A mere reading of Section 60(g) of the CPC, which falls under the proviso to the Section, clearly goes to show that the gratuity of an employee is excluded from the purview of attachment, therefore, it follows that the impugned order for recovery of gratuity is liable to be interfered with by this Court and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the recoveries so far made, so as to workout the exact amount and the same shall be returned to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In result, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar rkm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 3.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Headmaster, Government Nandanar Girls Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District. 5.The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. 1 cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.23841 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.24103 W.P.No.20616/2008 VSV {CO} TP/27.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/