THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5968 OF 2007 DATED: 01.02.2008 Between: Smt Vuppu Nookaratnam .. Petitioner And The Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5968 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in causing delay in payment of death-cum- terminal benefits of the husband of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal; and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the said benefits forthwith. It appears, the husband of the petitioner, by name, Veerabhadra Rao, while working as Mechanic Grade-1 in the respondent Corporation at Tuni Bus Depot of East Godavari District, died in harness on 20.07.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed the death- cum-terminal benefits accrued to the account of her deceased husband. But, the same were not paid. Hence, this writ petition. While admitting the writ petition on 26.03.2007, this Court passed an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.7624 of 2007 directing the respondents to pay the petitioner all the death-cum-terminal benefits accrued to the account of her husband, if there are no legal hurdles in their way. Now, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that in view of attachment orders and prohibitory orders passed by various Civil Courts, the respondents could not pay the death-cum- terminal benefits of the husband of the petitioner. It is also stated that the pension claim of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 10.11.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the attachment orders passed by the Civil Court are in respect of leave salary, and prohibitory orders are subject to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From the details of the attachment orders and prohibitory orders mentioned in the counter affidavit, it is seen that there were six attachment orders by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tuni, for a total amount of Rs.5,15,000/- to be attached from the leave salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner, and two prohibitory orders by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, restraining payment of Rs.93,750/- and Rs.96,700/- respectively, from the death benefits, subject to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as provident fund, pension and gratuity amounts are concerned, the Provident Funds Act, Pensions’ Act and Payment of Gratuity Act themselves prohibit attachment of the amounts payable under the said Acts. The relevant Sections of the said Acts are necessary to be noted hereunder. Section 3 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925: “Protection of compulsory deposits:- (1) A compulsory deposit in any Government or Railway 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 Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor, and neither the Official Assignee nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), shall be entitled to, or have any claim on, any such compulsory deposit. (2) Any sum standing to the credit of any subscriber to, or depositor in, any such Fund at the time of his decease and payable under the rules of the Fund to any dependant of the subscriber or depositor, or to such person as may be authorized by law to receive payment on his behalf, shall, subject to any deduction authorized by this Act and save where the dependant is the widow or child of the subscriber or depositor, subject also to the right of an assignee under an assignment made before the commencement of this Act, vest in the dependant, and shall, subject as aforesaid, be free from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or incurred by the dependant before the death of the subscriber or depositor. Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972: “Protection of gratuity:- No gratuity payable under this Act and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under Section 5 shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court.” Section 11 of the Pensions’ Act, 1871: “Exemption of Pension from attachment:- No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.” Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: “Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree:- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank-notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf: Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely: (a) to (f) ……………. (g) stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund (notified in the Official Gazette) by the Central Government or the State Government in this behalf, and political pensions;” In view of the above and in view of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in withholding the amounts to be paid under the Provident Funds Act, Pensions’ Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. However, in the counter, it is categorically admitted that the pension claim of the petitioner has been forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider releasing gratuity and provident fund accrued to the account of the husband of the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 1st February, 2008. IBL