Pension credited to a bank account is not exempt from attachment for contractual loan recovery.

The petitioner, a retired Field Assistant, receives a monthly pension credited to his account at J&K Bank, R.S. Pura Branch

In 2018, the petitioner stood as a guarantor for a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 15.00 lakhs granted to respondent No. 4.

Following a default by the primary borrower, the bank deducted a total of Rs. 96,530 from the petitioner’s pension account between August 2025 and January 2026 to recover the debt.

The petitioner challenged these deductions, arguing that pensionary income is exempt from attachment and recovery under the Pensions Act, 1871.

The court applied Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, which protects pensions from attachment "until they reach the hands of the employee".

It relied on the three-judge bench precedent in *Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla* (1969) which held that protection remains only so long as the money is under the control of the government as a trustee.

It relied on the three-judge bench precedent in *Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance* (1976) which held that protection remains only so long as the money is under the control of the government as a trustee.

The court also applied the *per incuriam* rule from *Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra* (2014) to prioritize earlier larger-bench decisions over conflicting later ones.

Regarding maintainability, it followed *Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil* (2000), which dictates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve contractual disputes.

The court reasoned that although Section 11 of the Pensions Act protects pension funds while in the government's custody, this protection ceases once the amount is actually paid and credited to the pensioner’s personal bank account.

The court noted that the petitioner’s reliance on *Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank* (2009) was misplaced because, under the principle of *stare decisis*, earlier three-judge bench decisions (*Radha Kissen*) take precedence over later two-judge bench decisions if they conflict.

Furthermore, the court found that the bank's action was based on the "Deed of Guaranty" signed by the petitioner.

Since the relationship was governed by a non-statutory contract, it fell within the realm of private law; thus, the petitioner could not seek a public law remedy (a writ) for a grievance arising from a contractual breach or enforcement.

On the second issue, the court held the petition non-maintainable as it sought to adjudicate a contractual dispute.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The bank's deductions were upheld as a legal exercise of contractual rights.