IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1038 of 2009 Between: R. Abraham ..... Petitioner AND The District Educational Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Rajasekhar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&4: AGP for School Education SC for A.P. Transco This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1038 of 2009 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the urgency of the case. Payment of pensionary benefits was withheld to the petitioner, who is a retired Head Master, on the ground that the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, granted an order of attachment in EP.No.71 of 2007 in O.S.No.20 of 2001 for a sum of Rs.1,92,457/- payable to the petitioner. However, vide letter dated 03.12.2008, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, informed respondent No.1 that the decree holder in the abovementioned suit filed full satisfaction memo in the Court and therefore the attachment was raised. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge requested respondent No.1 to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner immediately. Subsequently, letter dated 02.12.2008 signed on 12.12.2008 was issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, wherein the former requested the latter to inform whether the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are stopped or released and if they are stopped he requested to release the pensionary benefits of the incumbent except gratuity amount of Rs.2,40,900/- in view of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’). This order is questioned in this writ petition. No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education is present. The contents of the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 is difficult to decipher. When once the Civil Court informed respondent No.1 that the attachment orders passed earlier were raised, there can be no question of withholding any part of pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and request to withhold a part of such pensionary benefits by referring to Section 60 CPC cannot be sustained at all. The respondents are therefore directed to forthwith release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Subject the above directions, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.1320 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.04.2009 ES