IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.25323 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI RAMA S/O.PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED VISL EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE NO.562592 C.C.NO.2360 SMS DEPARTMENT R/AT NEHRU NAGARA TARIKERE ROAD BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS) REPRESENTING VISP-SAIL NEW TOWN, BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) VISP-SAIL, NEW TOWN BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BHADRAVATHI ON IA.NO.3 IN OS.NO.189/2016 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being the plaintiff in a suit for damages in O.S.No.189/2016, is knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the Order dated 03.01.2007, a copy whereof is at Annexure – A whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bhadravathi having rejected his application in I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of CPC, is in effect refused to direct the respondent-defendants to release his terminal benefits except the attached amount. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their panel counsel, oppose the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner for the following reasons:
a) the Apex Court in the case of DEOKINANDAN PRASAD v STATE OF BHIHAR, AIR 1971 SC 1409, has held that the terminal benefits of an employee is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and therefore, cannot be withheld. In the respective standing of the parties, in this legal battle shows that the petitioner is entitled to release of terminal benefits to the extent the same are not covered by the garnishee order dated 02.02.2016, a copy whereof is at Annexure – G which is in a sum of Rs.1,14,500/-;
b) the contention of the respondents that there was a threat by the daughter of the petitioner on the basis of the garnishee order and therefore, the subject amount was not breleased to the petitioner fearing the possible of contempt action is difficult to countenance. However, the said contention is sustained and is legally admissible are the matter for the Court below to consider. But there is no justification for withholding the amount of terminal benefits otherwise payable to the petitioner, of course, subject to outcome of the suit.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; the impugned order is set at naught; the petitioner’s subject application having been favoured, the direction issues to the respondents to pay all terminal benefits (except attached amount) to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY