Latest News
Back
Telangana High Court: Appropriation of a Decree of Civil Court prohibits the attachment or withholding of pension and gratuity
Following the Supreme Court's verdict in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009), the Telangana High Court has recently ruled that a retired employee's pension and gratuity payments cannot be taken to satisfy a court order. The petition sought to have the Justice P. Madhavi Devi bench rule that the respondents' refusal to release the petitioner's pension, gratuity, surrenders, GIS, and other pensionary benefits despite her representation was arbitrary and to order the respondents to do so as well as pass whatever other orders were necessary.
The Petitioner filed this writ case to obtain a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondent for failing to provide her pension and gratuity. When the Petitioner reached the age of superannuation on July 31, 2020, he or she retired from his or her position as a record assistant in the Respondent's office. When the petitioner inquired about her retirement benefits shortly after retiring, she was informed that the Civil Court had instructed the respondent to withhold the petitioner's salary, leave encashment, and other benefits under Section 60 of the CPC because she had served as a guarantor or surety for loans that had fallen behind on their payments. The petitioner's attorney argued that the respondent has stopped paying pensions, gratuities, and other pensionary benefits, which is not permitted under Section 60 of the CPC, Section 11 of the Pensions Act of 1871, and Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972. The Civil Court had ordered the respondent to withhold salaries and leave encashments.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Radhey Shyam case, which said that "the pension and gratuity of the Petitioner cannot be attached and cannot be withheld for the appropriation of a decree of any Civil Court," was cited by Justice P. Madhavi Devi as she reviewed the facts of the case. The court noted that a retired employee's pension and gratuity payments cannot be attached to satisfy a court order under clause (g) of Section 60(1) of the CPC (Property subject to attachment and sale in execution of decree). As a result, the Court ordered the Respondent to pay the full amount of the pension and gratuity for which they were qualified. It was made plain, however, that the Petitioner would not be eligible for payment toward the encashment of leave since it is not free from attachment under Section 60 CPC. The writ was granted in part.
