AT HYDERABAD.

F. A. 1167/2008 against C.C. 21/2008, Dist. Forum, Ongole

Between:

Mutyala  Koteswaramma

W/o. Late Subba Rao

C/o.  K. Rajendra Babu

2-1-373, Near Gilaka Bavi

Gaddalagunta Smashanam Road

Ongole, Prakasham Dist.                  ***                         Appellant/Complainant

                                                          And

1)  The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Kandukur Mandal       

Prakasham Dist.

2)  The Govt. of A.P.

Rep. by Dist. Collector

Prakasham Dist.

Ongole.                                              ***                        Respondents/Ops.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          P.I.P.

Counsel for the Resps:                               Govt. Pleader.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                                                &

                  SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.    

2)                The case of the complainant in brief  is that she worked as  village secretary in Panchayat Raj department  and was retired on 31.12.2006.   When she was indebted to some third parties and could not repay them, they filed suits, obtained decrees and attached her salary as well as terminal benefits.    However, R1 Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) did not inform the courts as to the exemption entitled to by her u/s 60 of C.P.C.   Though R2 processed and sanctioned the amounts,  it did not disburse the amounts.    She even addressed letters to R1 to submit the orders of attachment of the courts; however, he did not inform her.    He was sending irrelevant letters.    R1 was hand in glove with creditors despite clear cut instructions of R2.  She was a widow suffering from ill-health, trapped in debts. Leading  hand to mouth existence,  and in view of the conduct of R1 she could not get her gratuity, pension, provident fund etc.    She filed the complaint to release the above said amounts besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs. 

3)                 R1 resisted the case.   He alleged that  Senior Civil Judge, Chirala,   and Principal Senior  Civil Judge, Ongole,  sent several attachments/warrants against the complainant wherein  details of amounts,  dates of attachments/warrants were mentioned, besides that,   Principle  Senior Civil  Judge, Ongole  issued prohibitary orders in E.P. No. 192/2006 in O.S. No. 163/2001 attaching an amount of Rs. 2,49,167/-  from out of pensionary  benefits payable to her.  As Garnishee he was required to send those amounts.    Pension, gratuity and commutation proposals of the complainant have been submitted to the Accountant General, Hyderabad  duly informing the court attachments/warrants etc.   It is his responsibility to mention all  the pending dues relating to the retired employees in the pension proposals before submitting to the Accountant General,  who is the competent authority to sanction the benefits.   In her   pension payment order  there is a categorical mention that  “if the court attachments  exceed the  available amount  of DCRG and  CVP, the  action   taken by the department  may be informed.”   As pension cannot be attached towards private dues, and the same may be appraised to the courts to vacate the court directions   if amount is to be recovered then the consent of the complainant be taken,  the said fact was communicated to the complainant on 21.8.2007.   She gave reply suppressing the orders of attachment and requested to resubmit the proposals to the Accountant General Office for releasing pensionary benefits.    She did not move the courts to vacate the orders of attachment.   When she moved the Dist. Legal Services Authority, Ongole he submitted all the connected records with facts and figures.  After verifying the dues, it  directed the complainant to settle the matters pending in various courts and obtain clearance certificate.   She was informed by letter Dt. 12.11.2007 about the instructions of the Accountant General, Hyderabad.    The allegation that he was hand in glove with the creditors was  false.  In fact, he has been addressing  letters to the Accountant General, Hyderabad for release of pension, gratuity etc. as per the legal opinion.  In view of the attachment orders he could not be able to release the amounts,  without orders  being vacated.  There is no deficiency in service on his part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                 The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6  marked,   while R1 MPDO filed Exs. B1 to B23 various orders of attachments and the correspondence made by him with the Accountant General, Hyderabad as well as complainant. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  Exs B10 to B23 are  attachment orders of various courts  and the complainant did not get them vacated, and as long as  the orders are in force  R1 cannot  release the amounts.  It would amount to defiance of the orders of the court.    Finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents dismissed the complaint.

6)                 Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.    R1 ought to have referred to Ex. A4 and complied the directions.   For a period of four months, amounts were illegally kept with him.    It ought to have seen that by virtue of Section 60 of CPC and Order XXI Rule 46 the amounts under pensionary benefits cannot be attached.    Except the attachment order of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Ongole in E.P. 192/2006 in O.S. No. 162/2001 served on R1,  remaining warrants were prior to her retirement and therefore he could not have refused to pay basing on those attachment orders.  The Senior Civil Judge has rightly pointed  out that due procedure as contemplated Order XXI Rule 46 CPC has not been complied and therefore the order of attachment is bad under law.    He did not follow the instructions made in Ex. A4 and therefore prayed that the benefits be released. 

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by  mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                 It is  undisputed fact that the complainant worked as  village secretary  in Panchayat Raj department  attached to R1  MPDO.   She was retired on  31.12.2006.  R1 addressed a letter  to  the Accountant General  for release of pensionary  benefits viz.,  pension, gratuity, commutation and other benefits  payable to the complainant  communicating various  orders of attachments against her salary and other dues.  It is not in dispute that  the  courts ordered attachment of  her amounts in the following cases:

9)                The attachment  order was  to with-hold  the  retirement benefits, salary and E.L.  salary.  It is not the case of the complainant even  that she made efforts to get the orders of attachment vacated in order to enable R1  or the Accountant General to release the pensionary benefits.  In fact  the Accountant General  by order dt. 15.7.2007 vide Ex. B2 fixed the  pension at Rs. 6,193/- p.m. payable from  1.1.2007  and Rs. 2,04,353/- towards gratuity while noting that:

  “as court attachments  exceed the available amount and CVP action  taken by the  department may be intimated.  As pension cannot be attached  towards private dues, court appraised of the same and orders may be obtained vacating the court direction.   A clear instruction whether  pension has to be  released or not may be furnished  duly indicating the amount to be released  from  the DCRG.  If the amount  to be recovered is  in excess, the pensioner’s consent for  effecting the recovery from CVP  and on pension may be obtained and furnished.   Pensionary benefits  will be released only after receiving  reply from you.”

Basing on which,  R1 sent letter Ex. B1. There upon the complainant approached the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Prakasham district at Ongole to resolve the dispute  vide Ex.B3.   However,  even  according to the  complainant  she was  advised to settle the matter  with the creditors.   It is not as though  R1 did not  pursue the matter .  He did take steps.   He has been consistently addressing  the letters to  the Accountant General vide Exs. B5 & B6  and also to  the  Principal Senior  Civil  Judge, Ongole,  Senior  Civil Judge, Chirala and Junior Civil Judge, Chirala  vide Ex. B7.   We may state that   though addressing  such letters are prohibited  but still R1  addressed  letters to the concerned  courts requesting vacating of attachments in order to pay retirement benefits.   He also addressed letters to the complainant to inform the outcome of the stay  orders.  

10)              Now the complainant alleges that since the orders of attachment are  against  provisions of  Section 60  of  C.P.C,  R1 could  have ignored the orders and paid the benefits  whatever she was entitled to.    We are of the opinion that  when the court  has ordered attachment  of the amount  by no stretch of imagination  R1 can  release the amounts.  If really the attachments were  illegal it is for the complainant to approach the concerned courts,   and see that the orders of attachments were vacated.  By no stretch of imagination,   R1 could  release the amount.    R1 cannot  adjudicate the matter  by himself, and refuse  to obey the orders of the court.     The complainant obviously knowing full well  kept  silent  and not getting the orders of attachment vacated.    She  circumvented the procedure and  approached the Dist. Forum  to get  her amounts released  in a way without paying the amounts  due by her.    R1 consistently  addressed letters to the Accountant General  as well as to the courts  and tried his best  to get the orders of attachment  vacated  however, without any success.    This cannot be termed as deficiency in service  on the part of R1.    They are all government officials in discharge of their sovereign functions,  it cannot be said that  they were doing any service attracting  the jurisdiction of the  consumer fora  particularly  in cases of this nature.    We do not  see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard.   We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

11)              In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

   Dt.  06. 07.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”