Amitav Banerji, J. - (1.) TWO questions of general importance arise in this execution second appeal. The first question is whether the amount which is deducted from the salary of a Government ser vant for payment into his provident fund is attachable or not under Section 60(1) (k) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, in execution of a decree. The second question is whe ther the dearness allowance and the interim relief forms part of the salary or are exempt from attachment.
(2.) ON behalf of the decree-holder it is contended that the amount so deducted for deposit in the provident fund is a part of the salary and is not exempt from attachment. The contention on behalf of the judgment-debtor, however is that it is a compulsory deposit and is exempt from attachment. In Section 60 of the Code the properties which are not liable to attachment or sale are stated. Sub-section (1) (k) of Section 60 of the Code reads as follows: - "Section 60(1) (K)-All compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925, for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment." This sub-section shows that all compulsory deposits and other sums in a fund to which the Provident Fund Act applies are exempt from attachment. The emphasis has been laid on words 'in or derived from'. It was contended that unless a deposit has been made in the provident fund account of the Government servant that amount re mains a part of the salary and is not exempt from attachment. The words 'compulsory deposits' have not been defined in the Code but in the Provident Funds Act. 1925 these words have been denned. These words have been denned in Section 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 which runs as follows: - "2 (a)-'Compulsory deposit" means a subscription to, or de posit in a provident fund, which, under the rules of the Fund, is not, until the happening of some specified contingency, repayable on demand otherwise than for the purpose of the payment of premia in respect of a policy of life insurance (or the payment of subscriptions or premia in respect of a family pension fund), and includes any contribution and any interest or increment, which has accrued under the rules of the Fund but any such subscription, deposit or contribution and also any such subscription deposit, contribution, interest or increment remain ing to the credit of the subscriber or depositor after the happen ing of any such contingency."
(3.) IT is also clear that it is not attachable in view of the provisions of Section 60 (1) (k) of the Code. The question in this case is not with regard to any amount which is deposited in the provident fund ac count but in respect of an amount which is deducted from the salary for the above purpose. As a matter of fact, it was contended that the amount which is deducted from the salary for the purpose of the payment in the provident fund account is also attachable. This ar gument appears to be based on the absence of the words 'a subscrip tion to in Section 60(1) (k), but it is evident that Section 60(1)(k) itself refers to the Provident Funds Act, 1925 and the very words 'com pulsory deposit' are defined in the Provident Funds Act. It has been seen that even a subscription to the Provident Fund comes within the definition of compulsory deposit. In my opinion, the words 'com pulsory deposit' in Section 60 (1) (k) will also include a subscription to the provident fund. The same definition as in the Provident Funds Act would be applicable to all compulsory deposits made under Sec tion 60(1) (k) of the Code.;