Pension credited to a bank account loses its exempt status and is liable for attachment or recovery.

The Petitioner, a retired Range Officer receiving a monthly pension, stood as a guarantor for a housing loan of Rs. 15.00 lakhs availed by third parties from Jammu & Kashmir Bank (Respondent No. 3) in 2019.

Upon default by the principal borrowers, the Bank deducted approximately Rs. 4,64,900 from the Petitioner’s pension account maintained at the Rajouri branch.

The Petitioner challenged this action, contending that pensionary income is exempt from attachment and recovery under the Pensions Act, 1871, even after it is credited to a bank account.

The Respondents contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing the matter was purely contractual.

1. Whether pensionary benefits credited to a pensioner's bank account retain their character as "pension" and remain exempt from attachment or recovery under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871.

2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a bank for the enforcement of rights arising out of a private contractual guarantee.

The Court primarily applied Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, which prohibits the attachment of pensions.

It relied on the "Trustee" doctrine from UOI v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla (1969) and UOI v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance (1976), which established that pensionary benefits are immune from attachment only until they are actually paid to the employee.

Furthermore, the court applied the per incuriam rule as defined in Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) to prioritize earlier Larger/Coordinate Bench decisions over conflicting later ones.

Regarding maintainability, the court applied the rule from Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil (2000), which dictates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve disputes arising from non-statutory contracts.

The Court analyzed the timing of the "payment" to determine the applicability of Section 11 of the Pensions Act.

It harmonized conflicting precedents by ruling that once pension funds are credited to a pensioner's individual account, the government’s role as a "trustee" ends, and the funds lose their exempt status, becoming "paid" and liable for recovery.

The Court specifically rejected the Petitioner's reliance on Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009), holding it per incuriam because it contradicted the earlier Three-Judge Bench ruling in Radha Kissen Agarwalla.

On the contractual aspect, the Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s liability arose from a voluntary deed of guarantee; since this was a private contractual obligation and not a statutory duty, the Bank was entitled to exercise its right of recovery from the guarantor’s account without violating public law.

(2) A writ petition is not maintainable for the enforcement of private contractual obligations, even if the bank is an authority under Article 12.

All interim applications were dismissed.