TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (3) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India, has come up in appeal, by special leave, challenging a laconic order of dismissal in Civil Revision made by the Delhi High Court, thus upholding the view of the executing court over-ruling the contention of the State, objecting to the attachment of certain provident fund and pension dues held by Union of India (on behalf of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat) in trust for the judgment-debtor who had been employed in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The first court had held that the Union of India had no locus standi to object to the attachment by the decree-holder on the score that an outsider to the suit without 'interest in the attached money' has standing to intervene to dispute the attachability even if the sum was clearly immune to attachm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny 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 se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not to aid its grave diggers. We express the view strongly so that hopefuls may be dissuaded from taking up court time by playing up technicalities. We may now move on to a consideration of the basic contentions and, before that, the basic facts may be briefly set down. On March 31, 1967 a money decree for a little over Rs. 2,000/- was passed in Suit No. 516 of 1966 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against respondents 2 to 4 (who are ex parte). A warrant or attachment of the 'funds' of respondent No. 4, in the hands of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, was sought and ordered. It reads: "To The Pay & Accounts Officer, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi. Whereas judgment-debtor No. 3, Shri S. Krishnaswamy, an ex-reporter has failed to sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contention of the appellant, the case will have to go back for investigation on the merits We may formulate what has been indicated-the actual points urged before us by Shri Sanghi and vigorously controverted by Shri Rohtagi. (1) Is it permissible in law for amounts representing provident fund contributions and pensionary benefits to be attached, having due regard to ss. 3 and 4 of the Provident Funds Act, s. 11 of the Pensions Act and s. 60(1), provisos (g) and (k) of C.P.C.? (2) Is the Union of India entitled to move the Court and request it to investigate the question that the whole or part of the sum in its hands on account of the judgment-debtor as provident fund, compulsory deposits and pensionary benefits and, therefore, not liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this connection to remove possible doubts because this definitional clause is of wide amplitude. Moreover, s-60(1), provides (g) and (k), leave no doubt on the point of non- attachability. The matter is so plain that discussion is uncalled for. We may state 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....