2010 (6) TMI 679 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the order withholding gratuity is illegal and no dues other than Government dues are recoverable from gratuity or commuted value of pension in terms of the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 read with the Government of India orders issued thereunder and that no gratuity or commuted value of pension is liable for attachment in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure? Held that - The Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to sit in judgment on the correctness or otherwise of the orders of attachments/prohibitory orders issued under the CPC or the RR Act. Therefore the Tribunal acted wholly without jurisdiction in essentially interfering with those attachment orders/prohibitory orders by directing the establishment to release the amounts to the respondent. We are also surprised at the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in having sat in judgment on the entitlement of the different creditors in different civil suits and RR proceedings including KSFE and a District Co-operative Bank in a proceeding in which they were not even parties. Even if they were made parties the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on any issue arising between those parties and the officer under the terms of the contracts between them. Thus no ground to sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. WP allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of withholding gratuity and commuted value of pension.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with attachment orders/prohibitory orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Legality of withholding gratuity and commuted value of pension
The respondent, a retired BSNL employee, challenged the withholding of gratuity and commuted pension value due to attachment orders/prohibitory orders issued by civil courts and competent authorities under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The respondent argued that only Government dues are recoverable from gratuity or pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and such amounts are not liable for attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal, considering the relevant rules and Supreme Court judgments, held that the establishment unlawfully withheld the amounts and directed the release of the withheld gratuity and pension with interest. The establishment contested this decision, claiming compliance with attachment orders.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with attachment orders/prohibitory orders
The establishment argued that they were bound by attachment orders issued by civil courts and RR Act authorities, and failure to comply would result in penal consequences. They contended that the Tribunal had no authority to question the legality of these orders and direct the release of withheld amounts. The respondent's counsel emphasized the entitlement of the officer to gratuity and pension, but acknowledged the obligation to obey attachment orders under the Code of Civil Procedure and RR Act. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review civil court orders or RR Act directives. It criticized the Tribunal for interfering with attachment orders involving other creditors like KSFE and a Co-operative Bank without jurisdiction, ultimately quashing the Tribunal's decision and allowing the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the establishment, emphasizing the binding nature of attachment orders and the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction to intervene in such matters. The judgment highlights the importance of respecting legal procedures and the limitations of administrative tribunals in reviewing judicial orders.