Court Must Identify Specific Retirement Benefit Before Ordering Attachment Under S.60 CPC; Gratuity, PF Can't Be Attached: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that where attachment of a retired employee's retirement benefits is sought in execution proceedings, the executing court must first identify the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached, as benefits such as gratuity and provident fund are exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144]

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order directing attachment of Rs. 15 lakh from the petitioner's retirement benefits in the execution petition and remitted the matter to the executing court for fresh adjudication after satisfying itself about the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"A bare reading of the above provisions would indicate that stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government or of a local authority or of any other employer, or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government or the State Government cannot be attached in execution of a sale. The Apex Court has also held that pension and gratuity amounts, even it converted into fixed deposits, cannot be attached for the satisfaction of a court decree, reinforcing the need to identify them as such."

The petitioner, a retired court employee, challenged an order allowing an execution petition filed by the decree-holder seeking attachment of his retirement benefits for recovery of the decretal amount based on promissory notes. The executing court had directed that Rs. 15 lakh be recovered from his retirement benefits and deposited towards satisfaction of the decree.

The petitioner argued that the decree-holder had sought attachment of his "retirement benefits" without specifying which retirement benefit was sought to be attached. He contended that benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, leave salary and certain other retirement benefits are exempt from attachment under Section 60 CPC.

Despite these objections, the petitioner contended that the executing court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that leave salary/earned leave was liable to attachment.

The respondent supported the execution order, contending that the executing court had correctly appreciated the law and facts. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision in CRP No.4498 of 2018, where attachment of certain retirement-related benefits had been permitted.

The issue before the Court was whether an executing court could order attachment of "retirement benefits" without identifying the particular retirement benefit sought to be attached.

Examining Section 60 CPC, the Court noted that gratuity, provident fund, public provident fund, life insurance proceeds and certain allowances are expressly exempt from attachment in execution of a decree. It found that neither the execution petition nor the executing court had identified the specific retirement benefit sought to be attached.

The Court distinguished the decision in CRP No. 4498 of 2018, observing that in that case the executing court had directed attachment under the heads of leave encashment, arrears of salary and pension commutation, whereas in the present case no particular retirement benefit had been identified. It therefore held that the earlier decision was inapplicable.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the executing court for fresh adjudication after identifying the particular head of retirement benefits sought to be attached.

Case Title: Mekathoti Yesupadam @ Seshu Babu v. Tamada Ratna Kumari

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 2296 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 144