Pension Amount Becomes Attachable After Being Credited To Account; Recovery As Guarantor Valid: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
19 March 2026 5:25 PM IST
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the protection available to pension amounts from attachment ceases once the amount is credited to the pensioner's bank account, and such amount can be subjected to recovery towards the pensioner's liability as a guarantor for a loan default.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired government employee challenging the deduction of an amount from his pension account by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank towards recovery of a loan obtained by two loanees for whom the petitioner had stood as a guarantor. The petitioner contended that pension is exempt from attachment under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, even after it is paid to the pensioner.
The bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed, "the pensionary amount of the petitioner having been credited to his account in the bank, can be stated to have been paid to him and when he had received the same by credit of the amount in his account, the same can be subjected to attachment with regard to his liability as a guarantor in a loan case."
Background:
The petitioner, a retired Range Officer from the J&K Forest Department, retired in the year 2018 and was receiving a monthly pension credited to his account maintained with J&K Bank. The petitioner alleged that without any prior notice or information, respondent No.3-J&K Bank Ltd., Branch Head Janipur, Jammu, deducted an amount of Rs.4 Lakh from his pension account maintained with respondent No.4. The petitioner was informed that the loanees had defaulted in repayment of the loan obtained by them, and the Bank decided to effect recovery from the pension account of the petitioner who had stood as guarantor.
The petitioner challenged the deduction on the ground that pension of a retired government servant is exempt from such recovery even after it is credited to his pension account, and that the deduction was made without prior notice and contrary to principles of natural justice. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents not to make any deduction from his pension account and to credit back the deducted amount.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the writ petition was not maintainable being a contractual matter, and that the petitioner was liable as a guarantor to liquidate the loan for which he had stood as guarantor.
Court's Observation:
The Court examined the provisions of Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, and noted that the SC in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank & Anr. (AIR 2009 SC 930), held that so long as the money remains under the control of the employer as provident fund, it is exempt from attachment.
In Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance & Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 1163) a two-judge bench followed this view and observed that provident fund amounts, pensions and other compulsory deposits retain their character until they reach the hands of the employee, and attachment is possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee, the Court recorded.
Applying the principle laid down in the earlier judgments, the Court held that the pensionary amount of the petitioner, having been credited to his account in the bank, can be stated to have been paid to him, and once received, it can be subjected to attachment towards his liability as a guarantor.
The Court also addressed the maintainability of the writ petition. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 293 the Court observed that the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is a public law remedy not available in the private law field where the matter is governed by a non-statutory contract.
The Court noted that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent bank while offering himself as a guarantor to the loan raised by the loanees, creating a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the bank. The bank, in default of payment by the loanees, deducted the amount from the petitioner's account in view of the deed of guarantee, the Court underscored.
Finding the petition bereft of merit and substance, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with connected application(s).
Case Title: Chuni Lal Vs Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)