T. RATHIKALA Vs. THE CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee Late. R. Thirupathy Venkadachalam, who was working as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Water Resources Organisation, Rajapalayam, 3rd respondent herein and died on 23.08.2016. Immediately after the death of her husband, the petitioner obtained the death certificate and legal heirship certificate and approached the 3rd respondent, seeking payment of monetary benefits of her husband including death and gratuity of her husband along with necessary documents. Since the petitioner's husband who obtained loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from TAICO Bank, Sivakasi, during his services, failed to pay the same even after notice, the TAIKO Bank had filed a compliant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him for his forged cheque amount and the same was also registered in C.C. No. 696 of 2006. However, the said criminal case was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, on 03.03.2014, after conducting a full-fledged trial. The petitioner has made a representation dated 21.02.2017, to disburse the monetary benefits namely, Gratuity, Provident Fund etc., of her deceased husband and the same was orally refused. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to disburse the death, gratuity, family pension, PF and all other monetary benefits of her husband within a time frame.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the death certificate of the petitioner's husband which clearly shows that the petitioner's husband Late. R.Thirupathy Venkadachalam while serving as Junior Assistant in the 3rd respondent Office died on 23.08.2016 due to sudden heart problem, therefore, as per the ratio laid down by this Court in Sathiyabama and others v. M. Palanisamy and others reported in 2004-1-L.W.125 , wherein, it has been held that the Provident Fund, Leave Salary, Gratuity etc., to the deceased employee cannot be attached in the hands of the employer, the respondents should be directed to return the aforementioned retrial benefits as other totally immuned from attachment, he pleaded.

(3.) Referring to section 60(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension are exempted from attachment.