Judgment:
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 21.10.2004, whereby the amount of pension payable to the judgment debtor was ordered to be attached in execution for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- along with interest @ 6%.
2. An application was filed for withdrawal of the warrants of attachment by relying upon Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871 (for short 'the Act'), contending that no pension granted by the Government on account of past service shall be liable for seizure or attachment by process of any Court. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor relying upon the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as S. Nagappa v. K.P. Hanumappa 2004 (2) CCC 634. It was held that when the pension amount is not Civil Revision No. 1322 of 2006 (2) lying with the Government or under its control and the said amount has already been sent and deposited in the savings account of the judgment debtor, it loses all the characteristics and incidence of a pension.
3. Aggrieved against the said order, the judgment debtor filed the present revision petition relying upon a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported as Vigneshwar v. Gangabai Kom Narayan Bhat Prasad and Ors. A.I.R. 1997 Kar 149, to contend that the it would be unreasonable and irrational to treat the physical point of disbursement as the cut off period to hold that the amount disbursed to the judgment debtor is not the amount of pension.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent at some length. Apart from relying upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Section Nagappa's case (supra), learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon Kerala High Court's judgment in Jayaraja Menon v. Rajahrishnan 1997 (2) CCC 210 (Ker).
Section 11 of the Act, reads as under:
11. Exemption of pension from attachment: No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.
5. The provisions of the Act have been extended to the State of Punjab with effect from 15.4.1950 by the Punjab Act No. 5 of 1950. As per the above extracted provisions, the pension granted or continued by Government shall not be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court. In addition to the aforesaid provisions, even Section 60(g) of the CPC, prohibits the attachment of pension allowed to the pensioner of a Government. The reasoning given by the Andhra Pradesh and Kerala High Courts, that the amount of pension when disbursed to the pensioner, ceases to be pension is, with respect, not correct, in my opinion. The amount till such time, it is not disbursed to the judgment debtor remains an amount in the hands of Government. Once it is paid to the pensioner, only then it is a pension amount. The purpose of exemption from attachment of the pension is that a pensioner should not be deprived of his source of livelihood as the pension is granted for a respectful living of the pensioner in lieu of the service rendered. Therefore, on deposit of the amount of pension in the Savings Bank Account of the pensioner, such amount will not cease to be a pension.
6. The Karnataka High Court has taken a view that immunity or protection must necessarily carry over for a reasonable period of time after disbursal. Otherwise it would totally and completely defeat the whole purpose for which the immunity was provided. It was argued before the Court that if the amount is converted into some other asset or if it is reinvested or if reasonable time has elapsed after the disbursal and the amount has merged with the other assets of the recipient, the position would be different. It was held to the following effect:
This is a special provision which therefore sets aside this form of property from attachment and it would therefore be totally unreasonable to hold that the same amount of money would be totally and completely immune from attachment as long as it remained with the disbursing authority, and that the protection disappears the very minute it is disbursed. Such an interpretation would defeat the very intent of the Section because the authority levying the attachment is only required to wait until that very amount is disbursed and straightway attach it in which case, the sole purpose of having provided the protection gets completely nullified. This could never have been the legislative intent and the provision would therefore have to be rationally and logically applied and the only way of doing it would be to hold that the amount in question continue to enjoy the immunity even after it is disbursed until it really changes complexion. When precisely this metamorphosis takes place is the real issue. To my mind, it cannot be at the exact point of time when it is disbursed because one would have to prescribe some carry over period. It would be rational to hold that where the amount is disbursed and it goes into a bank account that it would retain its original character until that account is withdrawn from the bank account or converted into any other asset or investment. This carry over period would be relatively short and the real test would be as to whether the disbursement is still intact in its original form. If that is so, it could still be identifiable in its original status and the immunity would carry over.
7. I entirely agree with the reasoning given by the Karnataka High Court in Vigneshwar's case (supra). The amount of pension when deposited in the sayings account of the Judgment Debtor does not cease to be pension. It is only if the amount is converted into some other asset or if it is reinvested or if reasonable time has passed after disbursal and the amount has merged with other funds of recipient, it can be said that the amount of pension ceases to be pension not entitled to exemption from attachment.
8. Thus the order passed by the learned Executing Court, suffers from patent illegality and material irregularity.
Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.2004 is set aside.