BHARATA BANKERS Vs. E RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for determination in this revision filed by M/s Bharat Bakers, decree holder in O. S. No. 105/78; on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, is whether the Dearness Allowance, Special Allowance and House Rent Allowance granted to the judgment debtor, the respondent herein, who claims to be an employee of the Central Bank of India, Calicut is 1iable to be attached or not.

(2.) The revision petitioner obtained a money decree against the respondent herein. While steps were taken in execution for attachment of the salary of the respondent, he resided the execution on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of clause (1) of S.60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree holder sought to attach the salary of the judgment debtor at the rate of Rs. 466/- per mensem. The judgment debtor contended that he is an employee of a nationalised bank, that his basic pay is only Rs. 580/-, special allowance is Rs. 171/-, D. A. Rs. 494.86 and H. R. A. is Rs. 75/- and his total emolument is Rs. 1320.86 and that in view of the fact that he is an employee in a nationalised bank, he is entitled to the benefit of S.60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on a decision of this Court reported in Kousalya Devi v. Praveen Bankers ( 1979 KLT 932 ), held that the judgment debtor, being an employee of a nationalised bank is entitled to get the D. A. Special Allowance and H. R. A. excluded by virtue of the provisions in S.60(1) of the Code, that his basic pay of Rs. 580/- alone can be treated as salary for the purpose of attachment and the amount available for attachment is only Rs. 60/-. Accordingly an order was issued by the learned Subordinate Judge attaching only Rs. 60/- per mensem from the salary of the judgment debtor.

(3.) Attacking this order, Mr. M. C. Sen, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the decision relied on by the court below has absolutely no application to the present case and that the judgment debtor is not entitled to the benefit of S.60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a nationalised bank is not a Government establishment, that an employee in a nationalised bank cannot be considered as a servant of the Government and that in any view, in the absence of any notification as contemplated in S.60(1) of the Code, the judgment debtor is not entitled to claim any benefit thereunder.