Kerala High Court
The Chief General Manager vs K.Y. Thomas on 8 June, 2010
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, S.S.Satheesachandran
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