Amount payable under voluntary retirement scheme is not exempt from attachment
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
C.R.P.No.1475 of 2019
ORDER:
The judgment debtors in E.P.No.94 of 2010 in O.,S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, are the petitioners.
2. The Execution Petition was laid by the respondent/Decree Holder against the petitioners for realization of Rs.1,16,640/- in terms of Order XXI Rule 46 C.P.C., to attach leave salary, bonus and compensation amount towards retirement benefits, which were in the hands of the Garnishee, i.e., the General Manager, FACOR, Shreeram Nagar. It was the contention of the respondent in the Executing Court that the 1st petitioner, who is working as fitter, retired voluntarily from service in FACOR Alloys Limited, Shreeram Nagar and was attempting to leave the place after receiving such benefits. He further contended in the Executing Court that if the 1st petitioner succeeded in his attempts, since he has a decree in his favour for recovery of money, he would suffer loss.
3. The petitioners opposed the claim of the respondent in the Executing Court on various grounds including on the ground that the attachment sought and ordered by the Executing Court was not proper and that the 1st petitioner was forced to opt for voluntary retirement on account of the harassment in the hands of the Garnishee and his staff. They further contended that the 1st petitioner did not retire from service on superannuation but opted for voluntary retirement scheme only to avoid harassment of Garnishee and his staff and therefore, attachment ordered by the Executing Court should be rejected.
MVR,J.
C.R.P.No.1475/2019
4. The Executing Court issued prohibitory order, which was served on the Garnishee viz., the General Manager, FACOR Alloys Limited, Shreeram Nagar, Vizainagaram District, not to disburse Rs.1,16,640/-.
5. As seen from the impugned order, it appears that on an earlier occasion this Court was approached by the petitioners by filing a civil revision petition questioning order of attachment issued by the Executing Court, dated 30.09.2012, directing the Garnishee to attach Rs.80,000/- being the compensation amount and leave salary amount of Rs.2,428/- for nine days, in all Rs.82,428/-, and not to disburse the said amount to the 1st petitioner. It was set aside, directing to hold enquiry again and to decide afresh.
6. Thereafter, the Executing Court, considering the pleas of both the parties with reference to Ex.B.1 & B.2 and Exs.X.1 to X.4, rejected the contentions of the petitioners and accepted the claim of respondent/DHR. Judgment of this Court in Repeti Venkataramana v. K. Venkateswara Rao Patnaik1 was relied on by the Executing Court, wherein this Court observed that the amount payable under voluntary retirement benefit scheme is not exempt from attachment under any of the provisions of Section 60(1) C.P.C..
7. It is now, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Executing Court went wrong and failed to properly appreciate the pleadings set out either in the Execution Petition or the affidavit filed in support thereof wherein specific request of the respondent was to attach retiral benefits. In view of it, according to the petitioners issuing prohibitory order to Garnishee and attaching the amount particularly payable under the voluntary retirement scheme as compensation, is not proper. Further, elaborating as to the scheme 1993 (2) ALT 393 MVR,J.
C.R.P.No.1475/2019 floated by FACOR Alloys Limited, Shreeram Nagar Workers Voluntary Retirement Scheme and referring to its letter under Ex.B.2 whereby the Executing Court was informed about several attachments ordered upon the amount payable to the 1st petitioner on behalf of different creditors in execution of other decrees, it is contended that the order under revision cannot be sustained. Thus mainly addressing, it is requested on behalf of the petitioners to annul the prohibitory order served on the Garnishee and raise the attachment so ordered.
8. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, none represented him in this revision petition.
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the order of the Executing Court in issuing prohibitory order on the Garnishee and attaching the amounts lying to the credit of the 1st petitioner payable on account of his voluntary retirement, is proper?
10. In support of the contentions, Dr. Majji Suribabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & anr., in Civil Appeal Nos.5798-5799 of 2008, dated 23.09.2008, wherein, while discussing the importance of pleadings and evidence, it was held that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings, and that they should be supported by all necessary and material facts and evidence. The effect of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this ruling have to be borne in mind in appreciating the contention on behalf of the petitioners, particularly in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of this case.
11. It is undeniable fact that Garnishee, viz., General Manager, FACOR Alloys Limited has been served a prohibitory order directing not to disburse the amounts lying to the credit of the 1st petitioner. It MVR,J.
C.R.P.No.1475/2019 appears from the material on record that whatever amount lying to his credit is not yet disbursed either on account of the orders of the Executing Court in this case or other orders received from different Courts as is reflected from the contents of Ex.B.2. It is also not in dispute that the 1st petitioner opted for voluntary retirement from FACOR Alloys Limited on account of the scheme floated by it w.e.f. 05.04.2000, the terms of which are stated in Ex.X.1-notice issued by this Company. As per the policy of the Company, compensation for left out period of service was confined to a maximum ceiling limit of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is also pointed out in E.X.4.
12. Either in the prayer column in the Execution Petition or in its supporting affidavit, the version of the respondent is that the amounts lying with the Garnishee were towards retirement benefits and they are further described as leave salary, bonus, compensation amount, etc. Much stress is laid upon the description of this amount as a retirement benefit and distinction is sought to be drawn that what has been ordered to be attached is with reference to compensation amounts payable to the 1st petitioner in view of his voluntary retirement and the same cannot be treated as retiral benefits or terminal benefits. Thus mainly contending, the petitioners requested to set aside the order under revision.
13. The distinction sought to be made out on behalf of the revision petitioners in this context, is appearing to be artificial than real. The description of the amount in the Execution Petition as compensation, etc., itself is indicative of the fact as to the nature of amounts lying to the credit of the 1st petitioner with the Garnishee. The question of calling them otherwise than as retirement benefits, MVR,J.
C.R.P.No.1475/2019 cannot arise even though the notice and prohibitory order served on the Garnishee so describe this amount.
14. Even otherwise, it is not the specific contention on behalf of the petitioners that this amount lying to the credit of the 1st petitioner with the Garnishee is exempt from attachment in terms of Section 60 (1) C.P.C. On the other hand, the Executing Court rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Repeti Venkataramana v. K. Venkateswara Rao Patnaik, supra, wherein it was clearly observed that the amount payable under voluntary retirement scheme is not exempt from attachment under any provisions of Section 60(1) C.P.C. In view of such situation, when the amount so available with the Garnishee is liable to be attached, the order under revision cannot be interfered with in any manner. Therefore, rejecting the contention on behalf of the revision petitioners, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed confirming the order under revision.
15. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequentially, the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli, in E.P.No.94 of 2010 in O.S.No.181 of 2007 dated 21.02.2019 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J 15th July, 2019 Js MVR,J.
C.R.P.No.1475/2019 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA C.R.P.No.1475 of 2019 15th July, 2019 Js.
Comments
Post a Comment