moving

Welcome to The AIAIASP...........write to us on circlesecretary@gmail.com

Counting of RTP service for Seniority, Financial up-gradation and other consequential benefits - CAT Hyderabad OA No. 020/132/2020

Pensionary benefits from being attached towards arrears of maintenance payable to the children

Case Details –
Case Type : OP (FC)
Filing Number: 25220/2019
Filing Date: 21-05-2019
Registration Number: 324/2019
Registration Date: 22-05-2019
CNR Number: KLHC01-035121-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

&

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 9TH MAGHA, 1941

OP (FC).No.324 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDERS IN E.A. NO.81/2017 & E.A. NO.01/2019 IN E.P.
NO.65/2014 IN 183/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL

PETITIONER/ PETITIONER IN E.A. NO.01/2019 AND
RESPONDENT IN E.A.81/2001/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

ABDUL SATHAR
AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, RESIDING AT K.K.
HOUSE, NADAYARA , VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI. M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT. M.SANTHY

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN E.A.01/2019 & RESPONDENTS IN
E.A 81/2017/DECREE HOLDER:

PATHIMUTHU
AGED 60 YEARS,
D/O. KUNJASAN, KUNNATHOORKONATHU, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL,
NOW RESIDING AT K.K. HOUSE, NADAYARA, VARKALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 0012

SAFAR,
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL SATHAR, RESIDING AT K.K HOUSE, NADAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.

SAIFA,
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL SATHAR, RESIDING AT K.K HOUSE, NADAYARA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.
R1-3 BY ADV. SRI. LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2019, THE COURT ON 29-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P (FC) No.324 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Dias,J.

“It has been said the difficulties of a litigant begin when he has obtained a decree” observed the Honourable Supreme Court in Shyam Singh v. Collector, District Hamirpur, U.P and Others [1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 693].

2. Shyam Singh (supra) comes to our minds on hearing the two-decade anguish of the children of the petitioner in realising maintenance from him.

3. Is a father’s pensionary benefits exempted from being disbursed towards arrears of maintenance payable to his children is the question that emerges for consideration in this original petition.

4. The congealed facts are: The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.65/2014 in O.S No.183/2005 of the Family Court, Attingal. The respondents in the original petition are the petitioner’s wife, son, and daughter, respectively.

5. The respondents had filed O.S 183/2005 against the petitioner seeking maintenance allowance for the respondents 2 and 3.

6. Despite receipt of summons, the petitioner did not choose to contest the proceeding. The petitioner was set exparte. The Family Court passed a decree on 30.12.2011, directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the respondents 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each. Although the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, the application was dismissed.

7. The 1st respondent filed E.P. No.65/2014 (Ext.P1) to execute the decree. An application was also filed to direct the petitioner’s employer – the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C) to withhold the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. Subsequently, as per the order in E.A.81/2017, the Family Court directed the K.S.R.T.C to deposit an amount of Rs.1,94,533/-.

8. The petitioner had challenged the order before this Court in O.P (FC) 435/2014. This Court, by judgment dated 30.1.2017, held that the Family Court had not committed any error in directing the K.S.R.T.C to deposit the arrears of maintenance. Nevertheless, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the execution court.

9. Taking a cue from the above observation, the petitioner filed E.A No.1/2019 before the Family Court, to keep all further execution proceedings in abeyance, and that the deposited amount may not be disbursed to the respondents. The respondents opposed the application.

10. The Family Court, by the impugned Exhibit P-5 order, dismissed the application, and allowed E.A No.81/2017, permitting the respondents to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,94,533/- deposited by K.S.R.T.C.

Held……..

40. In the case on hand, the respondents sought for withholding of the petitioner’s pension to satisfy the decree for maintenance passed in favour of respondents 2 and 3 way back on 30.12.2011. Though the execution petition was filed in the year 2014, the petitioner has been procrastinating the same.

41. In light of the definition of the word “creditor”, and that payment of alimony is not a debt or liability and that it is not one founded on a contract, express or implied, but is a legal means of enforcement of the obligation of the husband and father to maintain his wife and children, we hold that the respondents 2 and 3 cannot be branded or labeled as “creditors” of the petitioner. The liability of the petitioner to maintain his children is statutory and sacrosanct falling within the sweep of Art.15 (3) and Art.39 of the Constitution of India, as observed in Ramesh Chander Kaushal (supra).

42. The Parliament, in its wisdom, to protect the neglected and impoverished women and children, has enacted several legislations, both personal and uniform, applicable to all cross-sections of the society, making it mandatory for a man to maintain his wife and children to alleviate destitution. If wives and children are treated as creditors falling within the exemption to Rule 124 of the Rules, it will render laws relating to payment of maintenance redundant. Such a suppressive interpretation cannot be permitted.

43. It is worthwhile to note that Parliament has enacted Section 39 in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, giving a person who has the right to receive maintenance a charge over the property belonging to the person bound to maintain such person.

44. This Court in Sunitha v. Ramesh [2010 (3)KLT 501] has held that the relationship between the husband and wife, ward and guardian falls within the meaning of ‘fiduciary relationship.’

45. In another illuminating judgment, this Court in Radha v. Deputy Tahsildar [2015 (1) KLT 423], held that the obligation of a husband, who has deserted his wife metamorphoses from a mere obligation into a legal obligation,and that the said right would have precedence over crown debt.

46. In view of our above findings and the law declared in the above authoritative pronouncements, we have no doubt in our minds that the respondents 2 & 3 are not the creditors of the petitioner, falling with the sweep of Rule 124. The petitioner cannot defeat his children from realising maintenance from him, which is their indefeasible statutory right having precedence over the exemption under Rule 124 of the Rules. This court cannot remain a mute spectator to the agonizing delay that has occurred, and the machiavellian methods adopted by the petitioner to thwart the execution proceeding. Therefore, we reject the petitioner’s contention that his pensionary benefits are exempted from attachment.

47. Now coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stipend and gratuity payable to the petitioner is also exempt from attachment in view of Section 60 (1) (g) of the of the Code.

48. Section 60 (1)(g) of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads thus:

“60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree- (1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf ”.

Provided that the following properties shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:-

a xxxxxxxxx

(a) xxxxxxxxx

(g) 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] in this behalf, and political pension;

(emphasis supplied).

49. In addition to our findings with reference to Rule 124 of Kerala Service Rules – Part III, we find that the Legislature has knowingly included the words “family pension fund” in Section 60 (1) (g) of the Code. Therefore,it is held that wife and children do not fall within the fold of the exemption to Section 60 (1) of the Code, as family pension fund that is payable to the family/dependents of the pensioner is exempted from attachment only by a person falling outside the purview of family. The above provision is almost analogous to Rule 124 of Kerala Service Rules – Part III. Our findings on Rule 124 is equally applicable to Section 60 (1) (g) of the Code. So there is no legal bar for the respondents 2 and 3 to attach the stipend and gratuity of the petitioner. We hold that the respondents 2 and 3 have the first charge over the properties of the petitioner and their right to be maintained by the petitioner overrides all such exemptions in law.

We do not find any circumstances warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we dismiss this original petition. We direct the Family Court to forthwith release the entire amount withheld by it to the respondents 2 and 3, and dispose of the execution proceedings, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

K.HARILAL, JUDGE

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

Cabinet approves protocol amending the Agreement between India and Sri Lanka for avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income

Cabinet approves protocol amending the Agreement between India and Sri Lanka for avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income
The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has approved the Signing and Ratification of the Protocol amending the Agreement between India and Sri Lanka for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

Impact:
Updation of preamble text and inclusion of Principal Purpose Test, a general anti abuse provision in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) will result in curbing of tax planning strategies which exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules.

Details:
  1. The existing DTAA between India and Sri Lanka was signed on 22nd January, 2013 and entered into force on 22nd October, 2013.
  2. India and Sri Lanka are members of the Inclusive Framework and as such are required to implement the minimum standards under G-20 OECD BEPS Action Reports in respect of their DTAAs with Inclusive Framework countries. Minimum standards under BEPS Action 6 can be met through the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI) or through agreement bilaterally.
  3. India is a signatory to the MLI. However, Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the MLI as of now. Therefore, amendment of the India-Sri Lanka DTAA bilaterally is required to update the Preamble and also to insert Principal Purpose Test (PPT) provisions to meet the minimum standards on treaty abuse under Action 6 of G-20 OECD Base Erosion & Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project.

Background:
The existing Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Sri Lanka was signed on 22nd January, 2013 and entered into force on 22nd October, 2013. India and Sri Lanka are members of the Inclusive Framework and as such are required to implement the minimum standards under G-20 OECD BEPS Action Reports in respect of their DTAAs with Inclusive Framework countries. Minimum standards under BEPS Action 6 can be met through the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI) or through agreement bilaterally. India is a signatory to the MLI.
******

Pay-fixation method for regular promotion and MACP from 4200 Grade Pay to 4600 Pay: Clarification by Finance Ministry

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1227
ANSWERED ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020
MAGHA 21 I 1941 (SAKA)
SHRI KAUSHAL KISHORE
PAY FIXATION METHOD
Will the Minister of Finance be pleased to state:
(a) whether the pay-fixation method for regular promotion and MACP from 4200 Grade Pay to 4600 Pay are done in same manner for the Central Government employees in departments following 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and if not, the comments of the Ministry thereon;
(b) the details of the Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service {Revised Pay) Rule, 2008;
(c ) whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for pay-fixation in MACP case from 4200 Grade Pay to 4600 Grade Pay to a minimum of Rs.18460/- under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rule, 2008 in Appeal No 3052/2019 in case of Union of India and others in their judgment dated 14.03.2019 and if so,the details thereof and the Government reaction thereto;
(d) whether the employees with similar/identical cases could use/rely on the said order for applying for their pay- fixation or they have to separately undergo the same strenuous and unnecessary lengthy litigation process and if so, the details thereof ; and
(e) whether a general order is necessary or the copy of the above order after will be sufficient enough for seeking pay-fixation for employee having similar/identical cases and if not, the time by which the general orders will be brought by the Ministry for guiding the concerned Departments in this regard?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE
( SHRI ANURAG SINGH THAKUR )
{a) As per Rule 13 of Central Civil Services {Revised Pay) Rules 2008[CCS {RP) Rules 2008], the fixation of pay in the case of promotion from one Grade Pay to another Grade Pay is required to be done by granting one increment equal to 3% of the sum of the Pay in the Pay Band and the existing Grade Pay of the particular post will be computed and rounded off to next multiple of 10. This will be added to the existing Pay in the Pay Band. The Grade Pay corresponding to the promotion post will thereafter be granted in addition to this Pay in the Pay Band.
No separate method of fixation has been prescribed under MACP scheme. The benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under MACP scheme. Therefore, the pay shall be raised by 3% of total Pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay drawn before such upgradation. There shall, however, be no further fixation of pay at the time of regular promotion if it is in the same Grade Pay as granted under MACP scheme. However, at the time of actual promotion if it happens to be in a post carrying higher Grade Pay than what is available under MACP scheme, no pay fixation would be available and only difference of Grade Pay would be made available. Further, in case of promotion to a higher Grade Pay other than what has been given under MACP, the employee shall have the option to draw the difference of Grade Pays from the date of such regular promotion/grant of Non-Functional Scale or the date of accrual of next increment in the pay allowed under MACP.
(b) The Rule 11 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 provides that where a Government servant continues to draw his pay in the existing scale and is brought over to the revised pay structure from a date later than 1st day of January , 2006, his Pay from the later date in the revised pay structure shall be fixed in the following manner:-
Pay in the Pay Band will be fixed by adding the Basic Pay applicable on the later date, the Dearness Pay applicable on that date and the pre-revised Dearness Allowance based on rates applicable as on 01.01.2006 . This figure will be rounded off to the next multiple of 10 and will then become the Pay in the applicable Pay Band. In addition to this, the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale will be payable. Where the Government servant is in receipt of special pay or non-practicing allowance, the methodology followed will be as prescribed in Rule 7(i),(B),(C) or (D) as applicable, except that the basic pay and dearness pay to be taken in to account will be the basic pay and dearness pay applicable as on that date but dearness allowance will be calculated as per rates applicable on 1.1.2006.
(c ) No, sir. Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to fix the pay in terms of Rule 11 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008.
(d) The claims of the employees for fixation of pay in revised pay structure are to be addressed by the concerned Ministries/ Departments strictly in terms of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 in consultation with Ministry of Finance/Department of Expenditure wherever required;
(e) Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 14.03.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 3052/2019 in the case of Union of India and others vs Raj Kumar Anand and others is specific to pay fixation matter of Shri Raj Kumar Anand and others and is in consonance with CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. Therefore, no general order I Office Memorandum is required to be issued by this Ministry/Department.
Source : Lok Sabha Question