Puran Chand Vs Sandeep Kumar and Another

Th e present revision petition has b een filed under Article 227 of the Constitution o f India by Puran Chand (si n ce deceased) through his l e gal representatives, for setting aside the order date d 22.03.2018 passed by the lear n ed Civil Judge (J u nior Division), Chandigarh, w h ereby the application filed u n der Section 151 CP C for recalling the order of attachment of pensionary benefits o f the petitioner was d ismissed.

¶14

D u ring the pendency of the pres e nt revision, the original petiti o ner Puran Chand e x pired, and his legal representa t ives have been brought on rec o rd. The controvers y pertains to the legality of at t achment of pensionary benefit s in execution of d e cree, which directly affects the estate of the deceased. Theref o re, the right to sue survives, and the petition rem a ins maintainable at the instanc e of his legal repres e ntatives.

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CR-1420-2021 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

Br i efly stated facts of the case ar e that the original petitioner, P u ran Chand, had ins t ituted a suit for permanent inj u nction restraining the respond e nts from interferin g in his peaceful possession o v er House No. 222, Sector 4 4 -A, Chandigarh. T h e said suit was dismissed, whe r eas the counter-claim filed by the respondents seeking damages at ₹25,000 p er month w.e.f. 15.04.2009 till realization was decreed. The appeal preferred b y the petitioner against the de c ree was dismissed, and the Regular Second Appea l is stated to be pending before t his Court.

¶18

Pu r suant to the decree, the respon d ents being decree holders file d an execution petit i on, wherein vide order date d 27.09.2017, the executing c o urt ordered attach m ent of the petitioner’s bank accounts, including Account N o. 10847839108 w ith State Bank of India, Secto r 17-B, Chandigarh, which was his pension accoun t .

¶19

Aggrieved by such attachment, t h e petitioner moved an applica t ion under Section 1 5 1 CPC seeking recall of the or d er dated 27.09.2017, on the gro u nd that pensionar y benefits are exempt from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1 8 71 and Section 60 CPC.

¶20

Th e learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, howe v er, dismissed the s a id application vide order dated 2 2.03.2018, holding that amoun t of pension of em p loyee can be attached in execution of money decree after the amount was credited by Government in Bank a c count of employee. It loses all the characteristics of pension. Reliance was p laced on S. Nagappa v. K.P. Hanumappa, 2004 (8) SLR 224 .

¶21

He n ce, the present revision petitio n

¶22

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CR-1420-2021 (O&M) - 3-

¶24

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner (through LRs)

¶25

Le a rned counsel for the petitione r has submitted that the impug n ed order is contrar y to law and defeats the very ob j ect of the Pensions Act, 1871. T he petitioner’s acc o unt attached by the executing c o urt was a pension account, and the protection und e r Section 11 of the Pensions Act and Section 60(1)(g) CP C is absolute. It is a r gued that pension is a socio-ec o nomic right meant for subsistence in old age, and c annot be subjected to attachme n t or recovery, even if credited t o a bank account. O nce the character of the mone y is that of pension, it retains s u ch character till it is withdrawn and utilized. Relia n ce is placed on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Balwant Kaur , 2013(4) PLR 296 , wherein it w as categorically held that:

¶26

“ A t tachment of pension is barred under the Pensions Act. It is only the amount of pension already paid th a t may be recovered by detentio n or ot h er means, but not by attachmen t .” It is thus contended that the impu g ned order deserves to be set a s ide and the attache d amount, if already recovered, i s liable to be refunded to the l e gal representatives o f the deceased petitioner.

¶27

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

¶28

Le a rned counsel for the respon d ents has controverted the ab o ve contentions and supported the impugned order. It is argued that the executing c o urt rightly relied o n the judgment of the A.P. Hig h Court in the case of S. Nagappa’s case (supra) , h o lding that once pensionary due s are credited into the bank acco u nt, they lose their c haracter of pension and beco m e part of the assets of the acc o unt

¶29

holder.

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CR-1420-2021 (O&M) - 4-

¶32

It is further submitted that the peti t ioner had failed to comply with the directions of t h e appellate court to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amoun t , and the attachment order w a s necessary to secure the dec r eeholder’s legiti m ate dues. Hence, it is prayed tha t the revision be dismissed.

¶33

Findings of this Court

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for b oth sides and examined the re c ord

¶35

with care.

¶36

Th e primary question that arise s is whether pensionary ben e fits credited into a b ank account retain immunity from attachment under Section 1 1 of the Pensions A c t, 1871 read with Section 60 C P C. Section 11 of the Pensions A ct, 1871 reads as u n der:

¶37

“ 11. Exemption of pension from attachment. —No pension gra n ted or continued by Government o n political considerations, or on ac c ount of past services or present infirmities or as a compassio n ate all o wance, and no money due or to become due on account of a ny su c h pension or allowance, shall b e liable to seizure, attachmen t or se q uestration by process of any C ourt, at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensi o ner, or in satisfaction of a de c ree or o rder of any such Court.” 13. Th e legislative intent behind this provision is to protect pensio n ers from destitutio n and deprivation, ensuring that t h eir sole source of livelihood in old age is not take n away. The immunity is abs o lute, unlike the partial exemp t ion provided for salaries under Section 60 CPC.

¶38

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CR-1420-2021 (O&M) - 5-

¶40

Th e Executing Court, while reje c ting the application, relied on the judgments of S. Nagappa’s case (supra) , which took the view that once pensionary ben e fits are credited in the savings a ccount, they lose the characteristics of pension. H o wever, those judgments are n ot binding precedents within t his jurisdiction, an d stand distinguished in view o f the law laid down by this Hon ’ ble Court in Rachhpal Singh v. Balwant Kaur (su p ra).

¶41

In Rachhpal Singh’s case (supra) , this Court, after considering the scheme of the P ensions Act and Section 60 CPC, categorically held that attac h ing pensionary ben e fits is barred, and the protecti o n extends even after credit of the pension in the b ank account. The Court emph a sized that the exemption conti n ues so long as the a m ount represents pensionary du e s.

¶42

Th e Supreme Court in Union of India v. Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani (Retd.), 1987(1) SCC 551 , also recognized that pension and pensio n ary benefits are pr o tected from attachment as the y are essential for the surviva l of retired employe e s.

¶43

Th e refore, the reasoning adopte d by the executing court that the pension amoun t loses its immunity upon credit i nto the bank account is contrar y to the statutory m a ndate and binding precedent of t his Court. 18. Th e death of Puran Chand does not alter this position. The l e gal question contin u es to subsist and directly impacts the estate of the deceased and his legal heirs, pa r ticularly if pensionary amou n ts have been recovered from his account.

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CR-1420-2021 (O&M) - 6-

¶46

Conclusion

¶47

In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that pensio n ary benefits, even w hen credited into the bank a ccount, retain their character a nd continue to be e xempt from attachment under S e ction 11 of the Pensions Act, 1 8 71 and Section 60 C PC.

¶48

Ac c ordingly, the civil revision peti t ion is allowed and impugned o r der dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil J u dge (Junior Division), Chandi g arh is hereby set aside.

¶49

If any amount has already been recovered from the said pen s ion account, the sa m e shall be refunded to the le g al representatives of Puran Ch a nd within four weeks from the date of this order.

¶50

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶51

November 04, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶52

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/ N o

¶53

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.11.10 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Puran Chand v. Sandeep Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Chand v. Sandeep Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Kaur Vs Surjan Singh

Gurnam Kaur and Ors. Vs Jit Singh and Ors.

Babli Vs Pawan Kumar Sharma

Krishna Ram Vs Ajay Kumar

Surajbhan Vs Luxminarian

Puran Chand Vs Sandeep Kumar and Another