“Section 11 of the Pension Act 1977 grants exemption of pension from attachment by enacting a provision that no pension, shall be seized or attached at the instance of creditor for any demand against pensioner or any satisfaction of a decree. The aforesaid provision came up for consideration in AIR 1976 SC 1163, wherein it was contended that once amount reaches to employee, the same becomes a general account and gets merged with other assets. Thus, the bank would within its right to debit such of the amount as it finds necessary for adjustment of the loan.It was held in that case "Once the pension or gratuity had been paid tothe concerned employee, they no longer retain their original character and is amenable to attachment," The aforesaid decision came up for consideration in the subsequent matter titled Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs Punjab Nation Bank & Anr AIR 2009 SC 930.In that case, the bank had laid lien against the pension amount and gratuity amount which was declined by the executing court on the ground that it cannot be attached in view of Section 60 of the Code. The bank filed revision petition before High Court, which was allowed. Therefore, matter landed before Apex Court. The bank relying upon the Jyoti Chit Fund case claimed that it had lien over the amount deposited in the bank. Holding otherwise, the Apex Court in Supra case held thatWe also agree with Ms. Shobha that the High Court could not have gone behind the decree in the execution proceedings and the alteration in the manner of recovery of the decretal amount was erroneous and cannot be sustained. We also agree with Ms. Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such a pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case (supra), where a contrary view was taken, the consistent view taken thereafter support the contention that merely because of the fact that gratuity and pensionery benefits had been received by the appellant in cash, it could no longer be identified as such retiral benefits paid to the appellant.The aforesaid authority was also relied by High Court of J&K in csse titled Farooq Ahmed Khan vs Mehbooka Khan CRM (M) 210/2020 D.O.D 71.05.22 relating to execution of maintenance order,wherein the Treasury Officer was directed to stop payment of pensionand other pensionary benefits to husband till he makes payment of arrear of maintenance to the respondent.
