Absolute provident fund protection bars indirect execution by receiver, while salary arrears remain attachable

An absolute statutory bar on assignment, charge and attachment of compulsory provident fund deposits cannot be circumvented in execution by appointing a receiver. The Court treated the protection for Government or Railway provident fund money as complete, so the fund itself remained immune from execution through indirect means. By contrast, arrears of salary and allowances were on a different footing and were not covered by the same exemption, so they could still be proceeded against in execution.

---

---

Issues: Whether provident fund money exempt from attachment and alienation under the Provident Funds Act, 1925 can nevertheless be reached in execution by appointment of a receiver.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory protection given to compulsory deposits in a Government or Railway Provident Fund is absolute. Where the Legislature has expressly forbidden assignment, charge, and attachment, the same result cannot be achieved indirectly by resorting to another mode of execution such as appointment of a receiver. The Court distinguished authorities where a receiver was appointed only because the debtor retained a disposable beneficial interest or because the property was not protected by an absolute statutory bar. It further observed that the arrears of salary and allowances stood on a different footing and were not covered by the same exemption.

Conclusion: A receiver could not be appointed against the provident fund amount, but execution could proceed against the arrears of salary and allowances.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the receiver order was set aside in relation to the provident fund money, while the separately identifiable arrears were left open to execution.

Ratio Decidendi: An absolute statutory prohibition on attachment and alienation of property cannot be defeated indirectly by appointing a receiver in execution.

---