Case: Union Of India Vs. Jyoti Chit Fund &amp; Finance &amp; Ors

2193-50 to which the defendant judgment-debtor is entitled, subject to any claim of the said J. D. and the said Pay and Accounts Officer is hereby prohibited and restrained, until the further order of this court from delivering of the said property to any person.Given under my hand and seal of the Court on 12th day of September 1968.Sd/-Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi."On service of the attachment order, objection was raised by the appellant, Union of India, on January 30, 1969 on the score that provident fund amounts and pensionary benefits were not liable to attachment and therefore the order may be rescinded. The decree holder (respondent 1) successfully contested in the trial court and on the objection being over-ruled, the appellant moved the High Court. It may be stated, at this stage, that the trial Court did not actually investigate the claim of the appellant as to whether the whole, or part of the amount sought to be attached, represented provident fund or pensionary benefits nor did the High Court go into the question. This means that even if we uphold the contention of the appellant, the case will have to go back for investigation on the merits7. We may formulate what has been indicated-the actual points urged before us by Shri Sanghi and vigorously controverted by Shri Rohtagi. (1) Is it permissible in law for amounts representing provident fund contributions and pensionary benefits to be attached, having due regard to ss. 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, s. 11 of the Pensions Act and s. 60(1), provisos (g) and ( k) of C.P.C.? (2) Is the Union of India entitled to move the Court and request it to investigate the question that the whole or part of the sum in its hands on account of the judgment-debtor as provident fund, compulsory deposits and pensionary benefits and, therefore, not liable to be attached, or is it out of bounds for a third party to the suit, like the Union of India, even if the step be taken pro bono publico by a relevant public authority, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in this behalf? (3) Is the Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff so totally separated from the Union of India that the latter cannot urge, in these proceedings, the claims belonging to employees of the said Secretariat in the civil court even if the attachment of the sums involved is contrary to law ? We are inclined to hold, , without hesitation that on all the points the appellant is bound to succeed. A bare reading of ss. 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, read with s. 2(a) of that Act, will convince anyone that attachment of amounts bearing their description are prohibited. It will be a gross violation of legal mandates involving public interest if, in the teeth of such injunction, an attachment should still be ordered by a court.The finer distinction sought to be made by Shri Rohatgi that because the appellant has already retired, therefore, the provident fund and allied amounts have already fallen due and have ceased to possess the complexion of sums by way of provident fund under ss. 3 and 4, is fallacious. On first principles and on precedent, we are clear in our minds that these sums, if they are of the character set up by the Union of India, are beyond the reach of the courts power to attach. Section 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act has also to be read in this connection to remove possible doubts because this definitional clause is of wide amplitude. Moreover, s-60(1), provides (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non- attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalled for.8. We may state without fear of contradiction that provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions we have referred to, retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee. The reality of the protection is reduced to illusory formality if we accept the interpretation sought. We take a contrary view which means that attachment is possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee. If doubts may possible be entertained on this question, the decision in Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwala &Anr. erases them. Indeed our case is an afortiori one, on the facts. A bare reading of Radha Kissen makes the proposition fool-proof that so long as the amounts are Provident Fund dues them, till they are actually paid to the government servant who is entitled to it on retirement or otherwise the nature of the dues is not altered. What is more, that case is also authority for the benignant view that the government is a trustee for those sums and has an interest in maintaining the objection in court to attachment. We follow that ruling and over-rule t he contention.It is possible to take a broad view that cases where public policy is involved and the court has a certain duty to observe statutory prohibitions, a wider concept of locus standi has to be taken. Any public authority interested in the matter and not behaving partially as an officious busy body may bring to the notice of the court the illegality of the steps it proposes to take. When the courts jurisdiction is so invoked, it may be exercised without insisting on some other directly affected party, like the judgment-debtor in the instant case, appearing to defend himself.The argument that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat is different from the Union of India is a new gloss which Shri Rohatgi has put upon his contention of locus standi. He has pressed into service Articles 300 and 98(2) of the Constitution of India, neither of which is helpful or applicable. This point has the merit of novelty, little else. Consequentially, we set aside the decision o f the High Court and of the executing court, but this is not the end of the matter.9.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We agree and indeed appreciate the States anxiety to fulfill the policy of the statute on behalf of the weaker-sections by taking up the burden on itself. May be, it is like a test case ventilating a cause in which a large number of employees may be vitallyare inclined to hold, , without hesitation that on all the points the appellant is bound to succeed. A bare reading of ss. 3 and 4 ofthe Provident Funds Act, 1925, read with s. 2(a) of that Act, will convince anyone that attachment of amounts bearing their description are prohibited. It will be a gross violation of legal mandates involving public interest if, in the teeth of such injunction, an attachment should still be ordered by a court.The finer distinction sought to be made by Shri Rohatgi that because the appellant has already retired, therefore, the provident fund and allied amounts have already fallen due and have ceased to possess the complexion of sums by way of provident fund under ss. 3 and 4, is fallacious. On first principles and on precedent, we are clear in our minds that these sums, if they are of the character set up by the Union of India, are beyond the reach of the courts power to attach. Section 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act has also to be read in this connection to remove possible doubts because this definitional clause is of wide amplitude. Moreover, s-60(1), provides (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non- attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalledfollow that ruling and over-rule t he contention.It is possible to take a broad view that cases where public policy is involved and the court has a certain duty to observe statutory prohibitions, a wider concept of locus standi has to be taken. Any public authority interested in the matter and not behaving partially as an officious busy body may bring to the notice of the court the illegality of the steps it proposes to take. When the courts jurisdiction is so invoked, it may be exercised without insisting on some other directly affected party, like the judgment-debtor in the instant case, appearing to defend himself.The argument that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat is different from the Union of India is a new gloss which Shri Rohatgi has put upon his contention of locus standi. He has pressed into service Articles 300 and 98(2) of the Constitution of India, neither of which is helpful or applicable. This point has the merit of novelty, little else. Consequentially, we set aside the decision o f the High Court and of the executing court, but this is not the end of the matter.