Challapalli and two other financial firms. Further v. November
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The respondents cannot pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of attachment orders passed by the Civil Courts, as to whether they are in conformity with the principles enunciated under Section 60 CPC. When once the Civil Courts pass an order attaching the salary of…
Judgment
The Writ Petitioner has retired from service of Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited, as a Line Inspector on 28th February, 2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since his terminal benefits have not been paid, he has instituted this Writ Petition.
A statement prepared by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Machilipatnam, has been placed before me by the learned Standing Counsel. It is shown therein that a sum of Rs.3,08,175/- is due and payable to the petitioner towards Gratuity, a sum of Rs.45,255/- is due and payable towards Provident Fund, a sum of Rs.4,68,817/- is due and payable towards Commutation of pension and a further sum of Rs.10,848/- is due and payable towards leave salary and further sum of Rs.21,708/- is due and payable towards Duty Period Salary. Apart these, the pension arrears from March, 2007 up September, 2008 payable works out to Rs.1,97,170/-. Thus a total sum of Rs.10,51,973/- is due and payable to the writ Petitioner. Further, a sum of Rs.5,83,156/- is the amount which the petitioner has agreed to transfer to State Bank of India, Bazar branch, Machilipatnam, as well as to Employees Cooperative Society at
Challapalli and two other financial firms. Further the petitioner has also been paid a sum of Rs.17,179/- and Rs.32,556/- through cheque Nos.17146 and 28313 drawn on 9.9.2009 and 16.9.2009 respectively. Thus, an amount of Rs.5,83,156/- is accounted for. Out of the balance amount of Rs.4,68,817/-, a sum of Rs.4,47,823/- has been attached by the orders passed by various Civil Courts.
It is, therefore, appropriate that the respondents shall be directed to pay the Writ Petitioner the balance sum of Rs.20,994/- immediately and the Writ Petitioner shall be paid his pension from October, 2008 onwards. If he has already been paid, it is alright, but if it has not been settled and paid, pension from October, 2008 onwards shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner immediately and he shall continue to be paid the monthly pension. Let this exercise be completed within a maximum period of 45 days from today.
Operative part
The respondents cannot pronounce upon the correctness or otherwise of attachment orders passed by the Civil Courts, as to whether they are in conformity with the principles enunciated under Section 60 CPC. When once the Civil Courts pass an order attaching the salary of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to contest such a case and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court concerned that the said attachment order is not liable to be passed and hence, it is liable to be raised. The respondents cannot sit in appeal on an order passed by a competent Civil Court and pronounce any opinion as to whether it is in accordance with law or not. It is for the petitioner to sort it out. Similarly, if the petitioner has given his consent letter while he was in service to the Drawing Officer authorizing him to transfer any money from out of his salary and allowances, the recoveries affected strictly in accordance with such authorizations cannot be termed as unauthorized or illegal. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 02-11-2012. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13984 OF 2008 November, 2, 2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 60.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.