Statutory immunity of provident fund and pensionary dues bars attachment until actual payment, and the Government may object to execution.

Provident fund, compulsory deposit, and pensionary dues retained their statutory immunity from attachment in execution until actually paid to the employee; sums held by the Government did not lose their protected character merely because they had become payable on retirement. The Union of India, as the authority holding and protecting those sums, had locus standi to object to wrongful attachment even where the judgment-debtor did not appear. The asserted separation of Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff did not defeat that objection. The attachment order and refusal to interfere were set aside, and the matter was remitted to determine the true character of the amount and its liability to execution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether provident fund and pensionary dues in the hands of the Government were liable to attachment in execution of a civil decree; (ii) whether the Union of India had locus standi to object to such attachment; (iii) whether the Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff were so separate from the Union of India that the Union could not raise the objection.

Issue (i): Whether provident fund and pensionary dues in the hands of the Government were liable to attachment in execution of a civil decree.

Analysis: Sections 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, read with Section 2(a) of that Act, protect provident fund amounts from attachment. Section 11 of the Pensions Act and Section 60(1)(g) and Section 60(1)(k) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, likewise support immunity from attachment. The protection continues until the amounts actually reach the employee, and the character of the sums is not lost merely because they have become payable on retirement.

Conclusion: The sums, if they represented provident fund, compulsory deposits, or pensionary benefits, were not liable to attachment.

Issue (ii): Whether the Union of India had locus standi to object to such attachment.

Analysis: A public authority entrusted with statutory protection of such dues is not a mere stranger. Where public policy and statutory prohibitions are involved, the court may entertain an objection raised by the authority concerned, even if the judgment-debtor has not appeared to object. The Government was held to have an interest in preserving the immunity of the sums in its hands.

Conclusion: The Union of India had locus standi to raise the objection.

Issue (iii): Whether the Rajya Sabha Secretariat staff were so separate from the Union of India that the Union could not raise the objection.

Analysis: The asserted separation did not negate the Union's interest in funds held by it on behalf of the Secretariat staff, nor did it deprive the Union of the ability to invoke the court's jurisdiction to prevent an unlawful attachment.

Conclusion: The Union was entitled to maintain the objection notwithstanding the asserted distinction.

Final Conclusion: The attachment order and the High Court's refusal to interfere were set aside, and the matter was sent back for inquiry into the true character of the amount held and its liability to execution.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts protected by statutory exemption as provident fund or pensionary dues remain immune from attachment until they are actually paid to the employee, and a public authority charged with holding such sums may object to their wrongful attachment in execution proceedings.

---