V.S. PUSHPALAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was aggrieved by the revenue recovery action taken by the 4th respondent to recover amounts due from the 5th respondent to the 2nd respondent; for which the appellant stood as surety. The appellant impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, finding the recovery initiated to be proper and perfectly legal. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant's claim, regarding he being only one of the sureties and no recovery proceedings having been initiated against the other sureties and the original borrower, could not be sustained, since the liability of the borrower and the sureties are joint and several. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the remedy, if any, to the surety from whom recovery is made is to sue the original defaulter or the other sureties to recover proportionate contribution due from them. The learned counsel for the appellant before us raised a contention that the amounts payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gratuity Act") is not attachable for satisfaction of a decree of a Court or otherwise. The recovery has been attempted by the 2nd respondent through the 4th respondent by virtue of Annexures R2(a) and R2(b). It is the contention of the 2nd respondent that the appellant, while offering himself as surety for the loan availed by the 5th respondent, made the aforesaid declarations before the 2nd respondent voluntarily submitting to recovery of amounts defaulted by the original borrower from the appellant's salary and from his DCRG/terminal benefits/VRS proceeds and other benefits. Hence, it is the claim of the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent Bank, from whose services the appellant retired, is obliged to recover the amounts due to the 2nd respondent from the retirement benefits of the appellant.

(2.) The 3rd respondent Bank, on the specific direction of this Court, has filed an affidavit dated 28.1.2013 explaining the stand of the Bank as also produced, by way of memo, the Gratuity Fund Rules of the respondent-Bank. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would rely on Rule 6 of the Gratuity Fund Rules to contend that in the event of a restraint or a prohibitory order being served on the trustees in respect of any benefits available under the Rules to a Member or his Beneficiary, then the Member shall forfeit all his rights and claims thereto and the same shall lapse to the Trustees. In such contingency, it is the submission of the learned counsel, the gratuity amounts could only be forfeited and cannot be paid to the 2nd respondent for satisfaction of its debts. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Bank that the said provision is brought in the Rules specifically to deter any employee from attempting to encumber the gratuity dues and the said rule is in consonance with the spirit and tenor of the Gratuity Act.

(3.) With respect to the amounts remaining with the 3rd respondent Bank, it is submitted on affidavit that the total retirement benefits due to the appellant was Rs. 10,69,280/-, out of which his liabilities to the employer Bank came to Rs. 7,00,444/37; which has already been recovered and credited to the Bank. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 3,68,835/63 retained by the Bank in a sundry account, comprises the Gratuity amount of Rs. 2,37,520.63 and Leave Encashment amount of Rs. 1,33,315/-. The said amounts are kept with the Bank only by reason of the communication of the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,73,112/-.