Challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,395/- with interest at the rate of 12%, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The petitioner herein was an employee of the 2nd respondent and retired from service on 31.05.2005. Originally, he joined the respondent Board as Junior Assistant and later, he was promoted as Assistant. While so, prior to the date of his retirement, he was issued with a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent on 23.11.2004 alleging that the petitioner had failed to take proceedings for recovery of waram amounts pursuant to the decree and thereby caused loss to the 2nd respondent and calling for explanation to the said show cause notice. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation. Subsequently, additional charges were included and served on the petitioner, for which also, the petitioner has given explanation. Under such circumstances, after retirement of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent sent a communication dated 28.10.2005 stating that a sum of Rs.1,23,395/- is to be deducted from the Provident fund amount payable to him and the balance is to be disbursed. The said order of deduction of Rs.1,23,395/- is per se illegal and against law and the same is challenged in the present writ petition.
3. The only question that is to be decided in the case is whether the provident fund amount is liable to be deducted or not. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
Section 10 of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which reads as follows:
?10.Protection against attachment: (1) The amount standing to the credit of any member in the Fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member and neither the official assignee appointed under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 nor any receiver appointed under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 shall be entitled to, or have any claim on, any such amount.
[(2) Any amount standing to the credit of a member in the Fund or of an exempted employee in a provident fund at the time of his death and payable to his nominee under the Scheme or the rules of the provident fund shall, subjet to any deduction authorised by the said Scheme or rules, est in the nominee and shall be fre from any debt or other liability incurred by the deceased or the nominee before the death of the member of the exempted employee [and shall also not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any court.]
3.The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall, so far as many be, apply in relation to the pension or any other amount payable under the pension scheme and also in relation to any amount payable under the Insurance scheme as they apply in relation to any amount payable out of the Fund.?
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also submitted that the Provident fund Scheme is applicable to the petitioner herein.
5. Reading of the said provision would show that the provident fund amount is not deductable as per
Section 10 of the said Act, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is not legally sustainable and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent is quashed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,395/- to the petitioner with interest at 12% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner HR & CE Nungambakkam High Road Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Executive Officer cum Joint Commissioner Sri Ramanathaswamy Devasthanam Devasthanam Office, Rameshwaram Ramanathapuram District.
.