1.This is a decree holder's revision against the order dated 9-7-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Shikaripur, in Execution No. 141 of 1981 raising the attachment in respect of Rs. 2,614-95P deposited by the Tahsildar in the Court.
2. The decree holder had obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 20 of 1972. The decree holder got attached the amount of Rs. 2,614-95P drawn by the Tahsildar as arrears of salary belonging to the judgement debtor.
3. The judgment debtor contended that the said amount amounted to a salary within the meaning of Section 60(i) C.P.C. and therefore it was not liable to be attached at all and hence he prayed for raising of the attachment. The plea raised by the judgment debtor appealed to the Court below and it raised the attachment. Hence the revision by the decree holder.
4. It becomes clear from the order passed by the Court below that the judgment debtor was working as a Shanubogue and that as the pay scale was revised and raised with effect from 21-1-1966, the Tahsildar drew the arrears of salary in the revised scale. The arrears came to Rs. 2,614-95P. On account of the order passed by the executing Court, the Tahsildar deposited the amount in question. Therefore it becomes undisputed that the said amount is arrears of salary.
5. Now the question is whether Section 60(i) C.P.C. would apply to arrears of salary. Section 60(i) C.P.C. reads as:
'Salary to the extent of the first four hundred rupees and two thirds of the remainder in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance ;'
The learned Author Shri Mulla in his C.P.C. 14th Edn. Vol. I, page 408 has stated as:
'This Clause does not apply to arrears of salary.'
A similar question came up before the Supreme Court in Union of India -v.- Smt. Hira Devi and another. Para 4 of the said Judgment readsas:-
''From the facts staled in the Petition filed by the Union of India before the High Court, it appears that a sum of Rs. 1,394-13-1 represents arrears of pay and allowances due to the judgment-debtor and a sum of1. : 1SCR765 Rs, 1,563 is the compulsory deposit in his Provident Fund account. Different considerations will apply to the two sums, though in the lower Court the parties seem to have proceeded on the footing that the entire sum was a 'compulsory deposit' within the meaning of the Provident Funds Act, 1925.'
The Supreme Court held as :-
'This conclusion does not, however, apply to the arrears of salary and allowance due to the judgment-debtor as they stand upon a different legal footing.Salary is not attachable to the extent provided in Section 60 C.P.C., Clause (1), but there is no such exemption as regards arrears of salary.'
A similar question again came up before the Calcutta High Court in Divisional Accounts Officer, Eastern Railway-v.-Radha Kissen Khaitan and Another. In para 2, the Calcutta High Court has referred to the said Supreme Court's decision and has held as:-
'In the second place, Section 60, Clause (1) does not apply to arrears ofsalary'
Therefore, in view of the said enunciation laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by the Calcutta High Court and in view of the fact that the amount attached represents the arrears of salary due to the judgment debtor on account of the revision in the scale of pay, I think the exemption laid down by Section 60(i) C.P.C. does not apply to the amount in question. Hence the lower Court, in my .pinion, erred in raising the attachment.
6. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order passed by the Court below is set aside. The revision is allowed. This attachment is made absolutes