IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 194 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.186/2008 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- REGHUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENNIKONATH PUTHEN VEEDU, MANIKANDESWARAM, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VELU, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, NELLIMOOTTIL VEEDU, NEAR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, MITHURMMALA, KALLARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.194 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 05th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, order refusing prohibitory order of injunction to restrain respondent No.2 from disbursing retiral benefits of respondent No.1, judgment debtor. Petitioner has obtained a compromise decree for money for reocvery of Rs.3,18,000/- with 6% interest from respondent No.1 as per Ext.P1, award of the Lok Adalath and to execute that award, Ext.P2, E.P.No.9 of 2010 was filed. Respondent No.1 who was working as Superintendent of Public Administration Department under respondent No.2 retired from service on 31-03-2010. Thereon, apprehending that respondent No.1 might withdraw the retiral benefits, petitioner filed E.A.No.32 of 2010 for an order of injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from collecting that amount. That application was dismissed by the executing court by Ext.P3, order stating as follows: “A prohibitory order restraining a person from disbursing pensionery benefits will amounts to an injunction, stipends and gratuity allowed to pensioners benefits are exempt from attachment by the provisions of Sec.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The burden is upon them, the petitioner to show that the amount which is O.P(C).No.194 of 2010 : 2 : to be ordered to be retained without disbursement will not come under the exemption contemplated under sec.60 of the Code.” 2. As I see from the order, refusal to grant injunction is since petitioner has not shown which portion of the amount out of the retiral benefits came outside the purview of Sec.60 of the Code and hence could be proceeded against. The order does not in any way curtail right if any, of petitioner to seek attachment or other relief against the attachable portion if any, in the retiral benefits. Hence, I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P3, order. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to move appropriate application as against that portion of the amount if any from the retiral benefits which could be attached as provided under law. Writ petition is closed with the above direction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-