LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Chit fund

(Querist) 11 June 2017 This query is : Resolved 
Sir/madam
I was retired from state gov job in jun 2016, i have guaranteed for a chit with 8 members i. 2003, the chit fund company suddenly came in before April 2016, and ask to pay rs 4 lakhs , all 7 guarantees are govt job holders, .. but chit fund company had a court order for that amount to be paid by me only,, and stopped my retirement benefits. What can I do?? Plz suggest..
Guest (Expert) 12 June 2017
What specific order the court gave to your employer on which your retirement benefits have been stopped?

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 12 June 2017
What was particular case filed against you where orders were passed to stop your retirement benefits only among 8 (7 other) members for recovery of chit fund amount?

How does your retirement benefits are stopped without attachment orders in an execution petition, which must have been against all 8 members? Which department you were in service? Did you submit statutory appeal?

In April 2016 the court order is stated to have been received against you whereas your retirement was in June 2016, did you not move in appeal? Some vital information is concealed in this query.


Show the Court/government order stopping your retirement benefits to a local prudent lawyer practicing in service matters for proper analyses, guidance and proceeding.
Guest (Expert) 12 June 2017
Vashista ji,

I am of the view that the story pertains to merely a hypothetical academic query, as artificiality is evident from it, as no court can order stoppage of retirement benefits that too when only he would have been targeted in a court of law by absolving all the other 7 guarantors.

It is also unbelievable that he would not have been aware of any court case and would have readily accepted the verdict without contesting that.
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dhingra ji,
I fully agree with you and appreciate your analytical acumen-ship.
Warm regards
P. Venu (Expert) 12 June 2017
Retirement benefits cannot be attached in execution of any decree. Bring this aspect to the attention of the Court.
Guest (Expert) 12 June 2017
Venu ji,

Court is out to know this fact, not to be reminded.

In fact, the author of the query has not stated even the slightest of the background how the court could erred in getting the retirement benefits stopped.

Since I had my own doubts about the nature of query, I raised my query.
Guest (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dr. Vashista ji,

Thanks for agreeing with my views. Let us wait for description of some background history of the order on stoppage of his retirement benefits.
P. Venu (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dhingraji,

I had made the suggestion based on my personal experience while in service and posted in Andhra Pradesh. There had been a decision of the AP High Court (Single Bench and sub-silentio) that recoveries could be effected from retirement benefits. Even though this decision was subsequently overruled, the said decision had become the basis for ordering recoveries from retirements. I had personally intervened in one case of a deceased employee as garnishee (I was the DDO then) to bring the correct legal position to the notice of the Court.

The author's name suggests that he is from Andhra Pradesh.
Guest (Expert) 12 June 2017
Venu ji,

I respect your views. But, factually, I preferred that the genuineness of the problem is explored, so that some meaningful advice may be rendered to the querist. Otherwise, you must have noticed that normally such type of queries without any background are posted just to seek answers for academic exercises that too in a bid to befool the experts as if a genuine person facing some problem has asked solution to his problem.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2017
Shri P.Venu,


It is another thread in which you have posted about your good work.


I once again appreciate your good endeavor.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dear LCI Author @ Mallikarjuna,


It has already been suggested in the thread that you may show all concerned and relevant docs to a very able local senior counsel specializing in service matters.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dear LCI Author @ Mallikarjuna,


You can benefit from experience and expertise of Shri P.Venu,.
Azhagananth (Expert) 12 June 2017
(2012) 5 LW 451

MADRAS HIGH COURT - SINGLE BENCH

SMT. SAROJA SUKUMARAN — Appellant

Vs.

R. PADMANABAN — Respondent

( Before : R.S. Ramanathan, J )

C.R.P. (PD) No. 392 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012

Decided on : 24-09-2012

1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 8177 of 2011 is the revision petitioner. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,47,600/= on the promissory note executed by the petitioner herein and also filed application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC to attach the terminal Benefits of the revision petitioner and that application was partly allowed by ordering Attachment of Rs. 3,50,000/= from the Retirement Benefits of the revision petitioner. This order is challenged in this revision.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per proviso (g) and (k) to section 60, the stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government and all compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 applies are exempted from Attachment. He, therefore, submitted that when the gratuity, provident fund and other compulsory deposits are exempted from Attachment, the court below erred in attaching Rs. 3,50,000/= on the basis of the concession or admission made by the counsel who appeared before the court below for the revision petitioner herein. He further submitted that as per section 60(1A), an agreement by which a person agrees to waive the benefit of an exemption under the section shall be void and therefore, even assuming that the counsel who appeared before the court below for the revision petitioner acceded to attach a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/= from the terminal Benefits, that concession is not valid and no Attachment can be made in respect of gratuity, provident fund and other terminal Benefits. He further relied upon the judgment reported in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, ANNIS ANANDHI & OTHERS v. KANAGA & ANOTHER (2009-3-LW 369) and LAKSHMI NARAYANAN v. VEERARAGHAVALU (1990(I) MLJ 138) in support of his contention.

5. According to me, the court below has committed a serious error in ordering Attachment on the basis of the alleged concession made by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also on the basis of the admission of liability by the revision petitioner. Even though in the counter, the revision petitioner has admitted that she owes only Rs. 2,60,000/= against the claim made by the respondent, considering the provisions of 60(1) proviso (g) and (k) and section 60(1A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the terminal Benefits viz., gratuity and Provident Fund amounts cannot be attached in view the judgment reported in 1990 (I) MLJ 138) wherein this court has held that even in the case of an employee giving an undertaking to waive the benefit of an exemption, that undertaking shall be void having regard to the provisions of section 60(1A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, as per the judgment reported in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, the Provident Fund amount cannot be attached and the same principle is reiterated in the judgment reported in 2009-3-LW 369.

6. Further, the respondent has not stated in his petition the details of the terminal Benefits and in the absence of any details, it cannot be stated that the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/= can be attached. Further, as per the letter of the Joint Director of the Stationery and Printing dated 29.12.2011, a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/= was attached as per the order of the court below from the gratuity amount which is prohibited under law. Hence, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside.

7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order of the court below is set aside. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

In view of the above judgment,the attachment order passed by the court{Execution court} is void. the same can be questioned under section 47 of C.P.C & damages can be claimed from the Chits Company and the same attachment can be raised.
Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2017
Dear Mr. Azhagananth,


I appreciate your contribution by sharing citations at LCI.




Kumar Doab (Expert) 12 June 2017
Many young members/experts have contributed wholeheartedly at LCI and have been a success story.



Mr. Bharat Chugh was an active member/expert and has become judge now.


Mr. Shonee Kapoor is success story.
Azhagananth (Expert) 12 June 2017
Well thanks for the Appreciation M/S Kumar Doab


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :





Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query