Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Chand vs Sandeep Kumar And Another on 4 November, 2025
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CR
CR-1420-2021 (O&M)
Reserved on:
on:-29.10.2025
Decided on:-04.11.2025
Puran Chand (since deceased) through LRs ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sandeep Kumar and Others ....Respondentss
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
M JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate and
Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Puran Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby the application filed under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order of attachment of pensionary benefit benefitss of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. During the pendency of the present revision, the original petitioner Puran Chand expired, and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The controversy pertains to the legality of attachment of pensionary benefits in execution of decree, which directly affects the estate of the deceased. Therefore, the right to sue survives, and the petition remains maintainable at the instance of his legal representatives.
representatives
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.11.10 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -2-
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that tthee original petitioner, Puran Chand, had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over House No. 222, Sector 44-A, 44 Chandigarh. The said suit was dismissed, whereas the counter counter-claim filed iled by the respondents seeking damages at ₹25,000 per month w.e.f. 15.04.2009 till realization was decreed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree was dismissed, and the Regular Second Appeal is stated to be pending before this Court.
4. Pursuant to the decree, the respondents being decree holders filed an execution petition, wherein vide order dated 27.09.2017, the executing court ordered attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, including Account No. 10847839108 with State Bank of India, Sector 17 17-B, B, Chandigarh, which was his pension account.
5. Aggrieved by such attachment, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 27.09.2017, on the ground that pensionary benefits are exempt from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and Section 60 CPC.
6. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, however, dismissed the said application vide order dated 22.03.2018, holding that amount mount of pension of employee can be attached attached in execution of money decree after the amount was credited by Government Government in Bank account of employee. It loses all the characteristics of pension.
pension Reliance was placed on S. Nagappa v. K.P. Hanumappa, 2004 (8) SLR 224.
224
7. TRIPTI SAINI Hence, the present revision petition.
2025.11.10 13:55I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -3- Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner (through LRs)
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and defeats the very object of the Pensions Act, 1871. The petitioner's account attached by the the executing court was a pension account, and the protection under Section 11 of the Pensions Act and Section 60(1)(g) CPC is absolute. It is argued that pension is a socio-economic socio economic right meant for subsistence in old age, and cannot be subjected to attachment attachment or recovery, even if credited to a bank account. Once the character of the money is that of pension, it retains such character till it is withdrawn and utilized. Reliance is placed on the judgment of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Balwant Kaur, 2013(4) PLR 296,, wherein it was categorically held that:
"Attachment Attachment of pension is barred under the Pensions Act. It is only the amount of pension already paid that may be recovered by detention or other means, but not by attachment attachment."
It is thus contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the attached amount, if already recovered, is liable to be refunded to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner.
Submissions on behalf
b of the Respondents
9. Learned counsel for
for the respondents has controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned order. It is argued that the executing court rightly relied on the judgment of the A.P. High Court in the case of S. Nagappa's Nagappa case (supra),, holding that once pensionary dues are credited into the bank account, they lose their character of pension and become part of the assets of the account holder.
TRIPTI SAINI2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -4-
10. Itt is further submitted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the directions of the appellate court to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount, and the attachment order was necessary to secure the decree-
decree holder's legitimate dues. Hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. Findings of this Court
11. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the record with care.
12. The primary question that arises is whether pensionary benefits credited into a bank account retain immunity from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 read with Section 60 CPC. Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 reads as under:
"11.
11. Exemption of pension from attachment.
attachment.--No No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a co compassionate mpassionate 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, sequestration for any demand against the pensioner, or iin n satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court."
Court
13. The legislative intent behind this provision is to protect pensioners from destitution and deprivation, ensuring that their sole source of livelihood in old age is not taken away. The immunity is absolute, unlike the partial exemption provided for salaries under Section 60 CPC. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -5-
14. The Executing Court,, while rejecting the appl application, ication, relied on the judgments of S. Nagappa's Nagappa case (supra),, which took the view that once pensionary benefits are credited in the savings account, they lose the characteristics of pension. However, those judgments are not binding precedents within this jurisdiction, and stand distinguished in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Balwant Kaur (supra).
15. In Rachhpal Singh's case (supra) (supra),, this Court, after considering the scheme of the Pensions Act and Section 60 CPC, categorically held that attaching pensionary benefits is barred, and the protection extends even after credit of the pension in the bank account. The Court emphasized that the exemption continues so long as the amount represents pensionary dues.
16. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani (Retd.), Retd.), 1987(1) SCC 551,, also recognized that pension and pensionary benefits are protected from attachment as they are essential for the survival of retired employees.
17. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the executing court that the pension amount loses loses its immunity upon credit into the bank account is contrary to the statutory mandate and binding precedent of this Court.
18. The death of Puran Chand does not alter this position. The legal question continues to subsist and directly impacts the estate of the deceased and his legal heirs, particularly if pensionary amounts have been recovered from his account.
TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1420-2021 (O&M) -6-
Conclusion
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that pensionary benefits, even when credited into the bank account, retain ttheir heir character and continue to be exempt from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and Section 60 CPC.
20. Accordingly, the he civil revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior D Division), ivision), Chandigarh is hereby set aside.
21. If any amount has already been recovered from the said pension account, the same shall be refunded to the legal representatives of Puran Chand within four weeks from the date of this order.
22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
November 04, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU))
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2025.11.10 13:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document