THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4533 of 2008 Date of order: 1.4.2010 Between: Medical Officer, Govt. ESI Dispensary, Patancheru, Medak Dist. …Petitioner and M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. And others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4533 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This revision is filed by the garnishee against the dismissal of his application-IA No. 234 of 2008 seeking stay of operation of warrant of attachment of salary dated 18.1.2008 issued by the Executing Court. 2. The first respondent-decree holder filed OS No. 4525 of 2005 in the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents 2 to 7 herein and obtained a decree dated 25.7.2006 for recovery of Rs.91,143/-. The first respondent-decree holder had filed EP No. 218 of 2006 under Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to the revision petitioner to withhold the VRS benefits of the second respondent-Judgment debtor, as the latter was likely to take voluntary retirement and withdraw VRS benefits. It is stated that a garnishee order dated 12.10.2006 was issued against the revision petitioner to withhold the salary of the second respondent and it was forwarded by the petitioner to the Accountant General on 31.10.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that by the time the said garnishee order was received by him, the second respondent had already retired from service and VRS benefits were also released to him on 31.5.2006 itself. Meanwhile since the amount covered under the garnishee order was not remitted by the petitioner with the Executing Court, the Executing Court issued the warrant of attachment of salary against the petitioner. The said warrant was sought to be stayed by the petitioner by filing EA No. 234 of 2008. The Executing Court dismissed the said application under the impugned order. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also filed another application-EA No. 235 of 2008 to recall warrant of attachment of salary which is not the subject matter of this revision and the said application is pending in the Executing Court. The learned counsel states that the petitioner is only a disbursing officer under whom the second respondent had worked before taking voluntary retirement. He also submits that VRS amounts were already taken by the second respondent as early as on 31.5.2006, and the garnishee order which was subsequently received by the petitioner could not be implemented as the second respondent- judgment debtor was neither working with the petitioner nor any amounts were lying with the petitioner relating to the second respondent. 4. The Executing Court has, however, taken serious note of non-compliance of the garnishee order by the petitioner and ordered attachment of salary by ordering EP. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent-decree holder submits that the details with respect to the amounts said to have been received by the second respondent have not been furnished by the petitioner and even under the impugned order the Executing Court states that it will consider these aspects while considering EA No. 235 of 2008. 6. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that the petitioner who is only a garnishee has made a categorical statement in IA No. 234 of 2008 that long before the garnishee order was served on him, the second respondent had already received VRS benefits on 31.5.2006 and had retired voluntarily from service. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be expected to have any control over the second respondent after 31.5.2006 and non-compliance of the garnishee order by the petitioner cannot be faulted. In fact, in view of the retirement of the second respondent from service, there is no relationship of the petitioner as a garnishee so far as the second respondent is concerned. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court against the petitioner to withhold the salary of the petitioner is clearly unjustified as the petitioner is neither garnishee nor the judgment debtor. 7. The revision petition is therefore allowed, however, giving liberty to the first respondent-decree holder to proceed against the judgment debtors and recover the decretal amount in accordance with law. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 1.4.2010 KR