The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla and Anr [1969 AIR 762] and in Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance [AIR 1976 SC 1163], consistently held that pension and provident fund amounts retain statutory protection only till they are actually paid to the employee, and that once received, they can be subjected to attachment.
Therefore, once the pensionary amount is credited to the account of the pensioner, it is deemed to have been received by him. Thereafter the amount loses the statutory protection under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871.
The Section 11 of the Pensions Act states, “ No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court 14[***] at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court”.
Conclusion
The protection under Section 11 of the pensions Act is interim in nature. It protects the “debt” owed by the Government to the pensioner. However, the moment the amount is credited to a personal bank account, the money becomes the private property of the individual and is no longer considered a “pension due.” Then onwards, it can be attached by a court in satisfaction of a decree.
Interplay Between the Pensions Act and the CPC
While Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, offers a narrow window of protection, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, provides a broader safety net that remains relevant even after funds leave the Government’s hands.
But some High Courts have allowed protection under Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), arguing that the legislative intent is to ensure the pensioner’s basic subsistence.
