* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR + WRIT PETITION No.17969 of 2001 % Dated: 25.11.2010 Smt.N.Padma ………..petitioner Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director,Hyderabad and two others. ………………Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri G.Vidya Sagar ^Counsel for the Respondents: None. <Gist: >Head Note: ? Citations: Nil. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17969 OF 2001 DT.25.11.2010 Between: Smt.N.Padma ………..petitioner Vs. A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director,Hyderabad and two others. ………………Respondents O R D E R: The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to release the amount of P.F. and E.D.L.I.F. amounting to Rs.67,000/-. No representation for respondents. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner’s husband N.V.Ramana was working as Driver (E.503319) in A.P.S.R.T.C., Madanapalli Depot-I. He had appointed the petitioner as a nominee to receive all the benefits to which he is entitled to, including P.F. accumulation, gratuity, etc. The husband of the petitioner died on 13.02.2001 leaving the petitioner, two sons and one daughter. According to the petitioner, her husband was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.31,000/- towards Provident Fund amount and Rs.36,000/- towards Employee Deposit Link Insurance Fund (EDLIF). It appears that one K.Surender Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2001 against the petitioner and her elder son on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalli, alleging that the husband of the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 20.05.2000 and in the said suit he had filed I.A.No.329 of 2001 seeking attachment of Rs.98,000/- from the amounts that are payable to the petitioner due to the death of her husband. It appears that conditional attachment orders were passed attaching arrears of the salary, commutation of leave account and earned leave. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third respondent i.e., the Depot Manager, Madanapalli-I Depot sought a clarification from the first respondent and the first respondent i.e., the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C., by the letter, dated 20.04.2001 clarified that an amount of Rs.95,534/- is to be withheld from the amounts payable to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased N.V.Ramana. Accordingly, the third respondent did not release Rs.31,000/- towards P.F. and Rs.36,000/- towards EDLIF. The petitioner again issued a legal notice dated 29.06.2001. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Secretary, Provident Fund Trust i.e., the second respondent herein vide letter dated 02.03.2001 addressed to the Depot Manager clarified that P.F. amount cannot be withheld and is not attachable as per Section 10(1) of E.P.F. Act, 1952. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 10(1) of E.P.F. Act, 1952 and Section 60 of C.P.C., and submits that G.P.F. amount and E.D.L.I.F. cannot be attached. The respondents have not filed any counter. Section 10(1) of E.P.F. Act, 1952 is as follows: “Protection against attachment: 1) The amount standing to the credit of any member in the Fund (or of any exempted employees in a provident fund) shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member (or the exempted employee), and neither the official assignee appointed under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) shall be entitled to, or have any claim on, any such amount. 2) Any amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules of the Provident Fund shall, subject to any deduction authorized by the said Scheme or rules, vest in the nominee and shall be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or the nominee before the death of the member or of the exempted employee (and shall also not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court.). 3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the (pension) or any other amount payable under the (Pension) scheme (and also in relation to any amount payable under the Insurance Scheme) as they apply in relation to any amount payable out of the Fund.)” The proviso (k) of Section 60 (1) of C.P.C. envisages that all the monies payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment-debtor. It is also contended that even as per the orders passed in I.A.Nao.329 of 2001 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, the orders only pertain to the attachment of arrears of salary, consolidation of E.D.L.I.F. amount and the said order does not cover the P.F. accumulated and E.D.L.I.F. It appears that at the time of interim orders passed by this court, a direction was issued to the second respondent to pay an amount of Rs.36,000/- by D.D./Cheque No.780395, dated 03.05.2001. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed not to with held the P.F. disbursement and E.D.L.I.F. of the petitioner, if not paid so far, to pay the same to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR J., Dt.25.11.2010 L.R.Copies tjs