J.Anitha & Anr. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J))

In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following relief:

Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows: The case of the applicants is that the Respondents have not granted the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the Applicants father and Family Pension to the 2^nd applicant from 10.03.2021 to 23.08.2023. The applicants have made representation vide letter dated 31.03.2023 for which the 3rd Respondent vide reply dated 21.06.2023 has called for submission of five documents. The Applicants submitted a reply dated 15.12.2023 submitting all the documents. Since the representation was not considered OA 792 of 2024 was filed and this Tribunal passed orders on 01.07.2024 to consider the representation dated 21.06.2023 and 15.12.2023. The Impugned order in 3007/OA-792/2024/Est. dated 11.10.2024 has been passed by the 2nd Respondent and communicated vide communication dated 14.10.2024 from the office of the 2nd Respondent. The applicants submitted a reply to the impugned order and since there has been no reply the present original application has been filed.

Heard both sides at length, perused the pleadings and materials on record.

When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents filed an Affidavit dated 06.09.2026 which is taken on record. The respondents have also filed a letter dated 21.09.2026 along with the Affidavit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the DCRG and other benefits would be released after withholding the subsisting garnishee order for a sum of Rs.3,62,683/-.

We find that such a submission made by the respondent is not correct and it is against the law. It is seen from the records that the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the deceased employee V. Janakiraman is due to all the applicants whereas the family pension for the period from 10.03.2021 to 23.08.2023 is payable only to the 2^nd applicant and not to any other person.

We further find that the impugned order relating to payment of subject to attachment for an amount of Rs.3,62,683/- out of terminal benefits is contrary to section 60 (1) (g) of CPC and against the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs Punjab National Bank & another, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 376. Further as per section 13 of payment of Gratuity Act 1972 the gratuity is not liable to attachment. That apart Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 exempts Pension from attachment by any court.

We also find that after the demise of the applicant’s father on 10.03.2021, the applicants were given the following terminal benefits namely CGEGIS, Earned Leave, GPF, Pending Monthly Pension and Pending DA Arrears. When the respondents were able to settle the above terminal benefits, there was no justification for withholding the DCRG and family pension payable to the applicants.

In the above circumstance, we find the applicants have made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to release the DCRG amount, payable to the applicants and the family pension payable to the 2^nd applicant without withholding any amount on the aforesaid attachment and without interest. The above-mentioned exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In the result the OA is disposed of on the terms indicate above. There shall be no order as to costs.