Pension and gratuity cannot be attached even by court decree
- Case name: UCO Bank & Ors. v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla
Date of Judgment: February 15, 2018
- Departmental inquiry against the Employee
- Employee was denied even the subsistence allowance during the pendency of the inquiry against him. Whereas employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him Employee after his superannuation on 31st January, 1999 was paid nothing during the pendency of the disciplinary inquiry.
- Employee was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself by denying him financial resources. was made to face a financial crunch
- Charge Sheet Issued after Inordinate delay of about 7 years against the employee with no explanation was liable to be set aside
- The Bench in view of payment of litigation charges ,also imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the Bank
- Radhey Shyam Gupta vs Punjab National Bank & Anr Civil Appeal Nos 6440-41 of 2008,order Dt 4 November, 2008 justice Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju
‘gratuity and pension could not be attached in compliance of any decree of the court referring to the provisions of proviso(g) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure’
caseof the bank that in a situation when debt cannot be recoverd from the assets of principal debter/ loanee,the same can be recovered from the guarantor. Bank did not put much efforts to trace the hypothecated Matador Mahindra FC RRD/1851, vehicle of loanee and then the Bank sought attachment of Fixed Deposits of guarantor ,the amounts received by him by way of pension and gratuity. At the stage of execution compliance in this manner was stayed by executing court
- Calcutta Dock Labour Board and another v Smt. Sandhya Mitra and Others [(1985) 2 SCC 1],
- It was reaffirmed that gratuity payable to dock workers under a scheme in absence of a Notification under Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, would not be liable to attachment for satisfaction of a Court’s decree.
- Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. Man Industrial Corporation Limited [(2003) 7 SCC 522], wherein Court held that an Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.
- State Bank of India v M/s. Indexport Registered and others [(1992) 3 SCC 159), wherein the same principle had earlier been dealt with.
- Union of India v Wing Commander R. R. Hingorani [(1987) 1 SCC 551] and Gorakhpur University and others v Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendera and others [(2001) 6 SCC 591].
Union of India vs. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and Others [(1976) 3 SCC 607],
That till such time as amounts payable by way of provident fund, compulsory deposits and pensionary benefits did not reach the hands of the employee they retained their character as such and could not, therefore, be attached.
Dr Prem Lata