Yamuna Rani vs Thanga Raj and The Assistant Elementary Officer

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 235 of 2004. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of money. He

obtained decree and he levied execution proceedings in E.P. No. 8 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul for

attachment of salary of this petitioner. The second respondent is garnishee.

In the counter filed by this petitioner, she has stated that she is working as the Headmistress in Dr.S.Zaheer Hussain Memorial Minority

Elementary School at Asanathpuram, Dindigul Town. By working as a teacher, she is getting a salary of Rs. 7,425/- per month including all the

allowances, out of which, the deductions are Rs. 200/- towards A.E.O''s office, towards ICICI Home loan Rs. 2,989/-, towards ICICI personal

loan Rs. 1,772/- towards Syndicate Bank personal loan Rs. 1,850/-, towards Family Benefit Fund Rs. 20/- and towards Professional Tax Rs.

35/- payable to Dindigul Municipality. Thus, after a total deduction of Rs. 6,866/-, there is a balance of Rs. 559/- per month which the petitioner is

getting as the take home salary.

The learned I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul rejected the contentions of this petitioner by observing that she herself issued the Salary

Certificate which is not acceptable and that it cannot be accepted that she is getting a sum of Rs. 559/- only per month after deducting all the

allowances.

The Salary Certificate, issued by the petitioner herself shows that the net salary is Rs. 559/- alone. Out of the total salary of Rs. 7,425/-, after

deducting a sum of Rs. 6,866/- under various heads, the net salary is obtained. The Salary Certificate reflects the particulars as to the basic salary,

allowances and the deductions towards home loan and personal loan etc.

In this context, it is to be seen that Section 60(i)(a)(i)(p) and (2) of CPC, deals with exemption of deposits, interests of judgment debtor from

the attachment of salary. The Court has to see what are the allowances which have to be excluded from the attachment of salary. Whether

dearness allowance payable to the public servant, which is meant to provide relief against the increased cost of living, has to be examined.

As per the earlier view of this Court, it is not exempted from the attachment of salary, since it is an integral part of salary. In V. Srinivasan Vs.

Padmasini Ammal, , a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with this subject has held thus:

I am therefore clearly of opinion that ""dearness allowance"" will be part of a man''s salary like acting allowance, when a man is discharging the duties

of a higher officer for the prescribed period under the Rules and is entitled to it. Names may differ, but the character of the payment is the same.

Dearness allowance fulfils the very same function as basic pay, and must therefore be deemed to be part of the ""salary"", unlike travelling allowance,

housing allowance, etc., which are meant for particular purposes and are confined to particular occasions, and sometimes to particular areas.

But, later the view has undergone a metamorphic change. The subsequent decisions on this point would indicate that the dearness allowance,

additional dearness allowance and the house rent allowance are granted with a view to provide relief to the Government servant at least in part

against the increased cost of living and hence they need to be examined from the attachment of salary.

In S.K. Sabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Dhandapani and Another, , this Court has held that dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance and the

house rent allowance ought to be excluded from the attachment of salary. I deem it fit to take guidelines from the later decision of this Court.

For the purpose of arriving a conclusion, it is profitable to extract the following particulars available in the Salary Certificate of the petitioner:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salary Deduction

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

T.G Rs.4,500/- A.E.O.Office R.D. Rs. 200/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.A. Rs.2,655/- ICICI Home Loan Rs. 2,989/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H.R.A. Rs. 220/- ICICI Personnel Loan Rs. 1,772/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M.A. Rs. 50/- Syndicate Personnel Loan Rs. 1,850/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F.B.F. Rs. 20/- Municipal Tax Rs. 35/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Rs.7,425/- Rs. 6,866

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Salary = Rs. 7,425.00

Total Deduction = Rs. 6,866.00

-------------

Rs. 559.00

-------------

As per the view of this Court, the three categories, namely, the dearness allowance, house rent allowance and medical allowance totalling Rs.

2,925/- have to be deducted. The basic pay of Rs. 4,500/- has to be considered for the purpose of attachment of salary. Out of Rs. 4,500/-

initially, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is to be deducted. A remaining balance of Rs. 3,500/- is available, in which 2/3rd is equal to Rs. 2,333/- which has

to be deducted leaving Rs. 1,166/- rounded off to Rs. 1,100/- for attachment.

In the result, the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul is modified to the effect that Rs. 1,100/- per month from the

salary of the petitioner has to be attached as per proviso stated above.

With the above said modification, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.