TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r applicable. This point has the merit of novelty, little else. Consequentially, we set aside the decision of the High Court and of the executing court, but this is not the end of the matter. We direct the court of the Subordinate Judge to go into the merits of the objection raised by the Union of India as to whether the entire amount or any portion thereof held by it on behalf of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff, so far as the judgment-debtor in this case is concerned, represents provident fund and compulsory deposits or pensionary benefits, excluded from attachability in execution of civil decrees under the provisions already adverted to. If it is feasible to effect service of notice on the judgment-debtor, well and good, but if it is not, the court cannot absolve itself of the duty to investigate into the merits of the claim or character of the amounts, so long as the Union of India is ready to make good its contention. The appeal is allowed - C.A. 2179 OF 1970 - - - Dated:- 22-3-1976 - V. R. KRISHNAIYER AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. JUDGMENT The moral of this case is that a short cut may often be a wrong cut-in law, as in life. The ratio of this appeal is that techni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and not the Government could raise objections regarding non-attachability of provident fund and pension amounts, as if Government were an officious intruder, bereft of any concern in the insultion of the amounts against execution of decrees of court. The amount involved is small, but Shri Sanghi, for the appellant, contends that the question is one of principle and affects a wide circle of government servants. We agree and indeed appreciate the State's anxiety to fulfil 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 vitally involved. We may make it clear here that the stand taken by Shri Rohatgi, counsel for the respondent, is two-fold. He argues firstly that this amount in the hands of Government is admittedly being held on behalf of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat servant who has just retired and, therefore, has lost the character of provident fund or pension. The inhibition of attachment of provident fund and like amounts, even if valid, cannot apply to this class of sums which have suffered a metamorphesis. Secondly, the Government has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93-50 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 merits We may formulate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the contention. It is possible to take a broad view that cases where public policy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
