IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2493 of 2010(S)
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
... Petitioner
2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
Vs
1. K.Y. THOMAS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.PHILIP
For Respondent :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :08/06/2010
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C.)No.2493 of 2010-S
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010.
Judgment
“CR”
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.The respondent retired from the service of BSNL.
As stated in the impugned decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, different attachment
orders/prohibitory orders were issued either by
the civil courts or by the competent authorities
under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968
requiring the respondent’s employer BSNL and the
disbursement officer to satisfy the demands
covered by those attachment orders/prohibitory
orders. Those prohibitory orders/attachment
orders ran to a total amount more than the Death-
Cum-Retirement-Benefit that could be released to
WPC2493/10 -: 2 :-
the respondent at the time of his retirement. The
Communication Accounts Officer(Pension) of the
Office of the CCA, Trivandrum issued a sanction
order for payment of gratuity and commuted value
of pension after withholding the total amount
covered by the attachment orders/prohibitory
orders. The respondent challenged it by filing a
writ petition before this Court which, in turn,
was transferred to the CAT when BSNL was brought
under the jurisdiction of that Tribunal.
2.The plea of the respondent was that 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.
3.The establishment, in opposition, contended that
WPC2493/10 -: 3 :-
amounts are withheld in view of the various
attachment orders/prohibitory orders issued by
the civil courts and by the competent authorities
under the RR Act, and the DCRG and commuted value
of pension due to the officer is less than the
total amount covered by the attachment
orders/prohibitory orders.
4.With the aforesaid, the Tribunal proceeded to
decide the question whether the establishment was
legally permitted to withhold DCRG and commuted
value of pension. It proceeded on the basis that
recovery from DCRG and commuted value of pension
can be done only in terms of the provisions of
the CCS(Pension) Rules and the judgments of the
Apex Court in that regard. The Tribunal
accordingly held that the recoveries/attachments
are not in conformity with the law and thereby
held that the establishment could not have
recovered or withheld any gratuity or commuted
value of pension on account of dues other than
Central Government dues. The establishment is
WPC2493/10 -: 4 :-
directed to release the withheld gratuity and the
commuted value of pension to the officer with 9%
interest from the date of his retirement till the
date of payment.
5.The establishment is before us challenging the
aforesaid decision as one without jurisdiction
and contrary to law.
6.We have heard the learned counsel for the
establishment and the learned counsel for the
respondent officer.
7.The learned counsel for the establishment argued
that the action taken by it and its officers were
strictly in conformity with the prohibitory
orders/attachment orders issued by the civil
courts as also by the authorities under the RR
Act and that in terms of the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure and the RR Act, the
establishment was bound to obey such attachment
orders/prohibitory orders. It was also argued
WPC2493/10 -: 5 :-
that if the establishment or its officers had
violated the orders of attachment/prohibitory
orders issued by the civil courts, they would
have necessarily invited penal action and further
proceedings, including for contempt, personally
against its officers. The learned counsel for the
establishment further pointed out that without
moving the competent civil courts and having the
attachments lifted, the officer could not have
sought for any direction from the Tribunal by
mulcting the responsibility for non-disbursement
of DCRG and commuted value of pension, on the
establishment.
8.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
officer made submissions touching the
jurisprudential quality of gratuity and pension
and argued that those elements are no more a
bounty but entitlements of an officer who has
served the establishment. He, however, could not
find his way to get over the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure which oblige a garnishee
WPC2493/10 -: 6 :-
to obey the attachment/prohibitory orders issued
by the civil courts. Equally, the provisions of
the RR Act which oblige the garnishees and
establishments holding money, have also not been
appropriately explained, to get over them.
9.The prohibitory orders/attachment orders are
issued by the competent civil courts or by
competent authorities under the RR Act. Those
attachment orders/prohibitory orders oblige the
persons who have the custody of the money, to act
in terms of those orders. Otherwise, they would
be visited with penal consequences in terms of
the Code of Civil Procedure and RR Act. There can
be no dispute on this.
10.Now, the jurisdiction of a Tribunal established
under the provisions of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 does not in any manner extend
to sitting in judgment on the correctness or
otherwise of a judicial order of a civil court or
even an order issued by the statutory authority
WPC2493/10 -: 7 :-
under the RR Act. An officer of an establishment
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot
seek relief therefrom qua an attaching creditor.
The officer not having moved the competent civil
court or the appropriate authority under the RR
Act for lifting the attachment/prohibitory
orders, which are issued invoking the provisions
of the CPC or the RR Act, as the case may be, is
bound by the effect of those attachment
orders/prohibitory orders. 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.
11.We are also surprised at the procedure adopted
by the Tribunal in having sat in judgment on the
WPC2493/10 -: 8 :-
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.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to
sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal. The
same is quashed. The writ petition allowed
accordingly. No costs.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
S.S.Satheesachandran,
Judge.
Sha/0106