TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t jurisdiction in essentially interfering with those attachment orders/prohibitory orders by directing the establishment to release the amounts to the respondent. We are also surprised at the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in having sat in judgment on the entitlement of the different creditors in different civil suits and RR proceedings, including KSFE and a District Co-operative Bank in a proceeding in which they were not even parties. Even if they were made parties, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on any issue arising between those parties and the officer under the terms of the contracts between them. Thus no ground to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. WP allowed. - W.P.(C) No. 2493 of 2010, - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued thereunder and that no gratuity or commuted value of pension is liable for attachment in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure. 3. The establishment, in opposition, contended that amounts are withheld in view of the various attachment orders/prohibitory orders issued by the civil courts and by the competent authorities under the RR Act, and the DCRG and commuted value of pension due to the officer is less than the total amount covered by the attachment orders/prohibitory orders. 4. With the aforesaid, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the question whether the establishment was legally permitted to withhold DCRG and commuted value of pension. It proceeded on the basis that recovery from DCRG and commuted value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icers. The learned counsel for the establishment further pointed out that without moving the competent civil courts and having the attachments lifted, the officer could not have sought for any direction from the Tribunal by mulcting the responsibility for non-disbursement of DCRG and commuted value of pension, on the establishment. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent officer made submissions touching the jurisprudential quality of gratuity and pension and argued that those elements are no more a bounty but entitlements of an officer who has served the establishment. He, however, could not find his way to get over the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which oblige a garnishee to obey the attachment/prohibitory orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the RR Act. Therefore, the Tribunal acted wholly without jurisdiction in essentially interfering with those attachment orders/prohibitory orders by directing the establishment to release the amounts to the respondent. 11. We are also surprised at the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in having sat in judgment on the entitlement of the different creditors in different civil suits and RR proceedings, including KSFE and a District Co-operative Bank in a proceeding in which they were not even parties. Even if they were made parties, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on any issue arising between those parties and the officer under the terms of the contracts between them. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
