IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6110 of 2009 Between: J. Sai Baba S/o. Late Pullaiah, Hindu R/o. D.No. 1-19, Rayalam Village, Bheemvaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager Human Resource Department, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limtied, Visakhapatnam. 2 The General Manager, Human Resource Department, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limtied, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limtied, Srikakulam .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.S.MURTHY FOR MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement and pensionary benefits to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, who retired as Accounts Officer from the services of A ndhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Visakhapatnam, is faced with a number of attachment orders from the Civil Courts as evident from paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3. Admittedly, on account of these attachment orders, the respondents are disabled from making payments of retirement benefits to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute existence of such orders. But, he placed reliance on Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which exempts gratuity and certain other payments referred to therein from being attached by the Civil Courts. While there is no dispute about this position in law, the admitted fact remains that the Civil Courts passed a number of attachment orders without reference to Section 60 CPC. Even though such orders are erroneous in law, they bind the petitioner as well as the respondents. This Court cannot therefore, direct the respondents to pay retirement benefits to the petitioner in violation of the said orders passed by the competent Civil Courts. In my considered view, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Courts and persuade them to raise the attachment orders to the extent of the amounts covered by Section 60 CPC. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that certain amounts, which are not covered by the orders of attachment, are still lying with the respondents. The petitioner, however, failed to give details of the same. If any of the amounts payable to the petitioner are not covered by the orders of attachment, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to respondent No.3 and within two (2) weeks thereafter, respondent No.3 shall dispose of the same. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7987 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. kvni