P S BHARATHSENA REDDY Vs. VALLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to review the order, dated 01-11-2013 in C.R.P. No. 3327 of 2013 on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record. As seen from the record, it is clear that this Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sake Gurumurthy (died) per L.Rs. v. Duggasani Kullai Reddy and another, 2012 4 ALD 115 in holding that the gratuity payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee is liable for attachment.

(2.) The basis for the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, decision reported in Calcutta Dock Labour Board and another v. Smt. Sandhya Mitra and others, 1985 AIR(SC) 996 One of the issues falls for consideration in that appeal is, whether gratuity payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee is liable for attachment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that the Chief Judge as also the High Court were in error in taking the view that gratuity payable to Md. Safiur Rehman was liable to attachment. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, even the gratuity payable to the legal representatives of the deceased is not liable for attachment. Therefore, the Review CMP is allowed and consequently the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the Decree holder to recover the amount from the legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with law. No costs.