1. The petitioner obtained a decree for money against theOpposite parry in the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah. It appears that theopposite party was formerly in the employ of Eastern Bengal State Railway buthas now left the service of the Railway.

2. It further appears that there is a sum standing to hiscredit in the Railway Fund, a Fund governed by the provisions of the ProvidentFunds Act, 1897. At the petitioners instance the Small Cause Court Judgecaused this sum to be attached in execution.

3. Subsequently however on the 22nd July, 1921, the learnedJudge made an order withdrawing the attachment on the ground that under theAct, money in the fund was not attachable.

4. Thereupon the petitioner applied to this Court and thisRule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order ofthe 22nd July should not be set aside and the attachment maintained.

5. The learned Judge before whom the Rule first camedirected that the papers should be laid before the senior Government Pleaderwith a request that he should obtain for the Court a copy of the Rules of TheFund and information as to a statement made by the petitioner in his petitionin reference to R. 10 of the Rules.

6. Accordingly when the Rule came on for hearing before us,the senior Government Pleader appeared and supplied us with a copy of the Ruleof the Fund, He further confirmed the petitioners statement as to the terms ofthe present R. 10.

7. The learned Vakil however also said that he had merelyobtained this information in compliance with the request of the Court and thathe was not in a position to offer any assistance to the Court as to the effectof the Provident Funds Act one way or the other.

8. The Opposite party did not appear either in person or byany learned Vakil.

9. The result is that while the petitioners case waspresented to us, we have not had the advantage of hearing argument on the otherside.

10. R. 10, it seems, was modified in 1919. The Rule isheaded "Withdrawals on Retirement" and as it now stands runs asfollow:-

The amount which accumulates to the credit of a subscriberin permanent employ will, when he quits the service be come his property, andwill be handed over to him unless the Account Officer has received notice of anattachment, assignment, or encumbrance affecting the disposal of the amount orany portion of it.

Should such notice have been received the Account Officerwill hand ever to the subscriber only that portion of the amount which is noteffected by the attachment, assignment, or encumbrance and shall obtain the ordersof the Comptroller and Auditor General, as. Administrator of the fund,regarding the disposal of the balance.

11. The question whether money standing to the credit of adepositor alter his retirement can be attached before withdrawal, seems todepend on the true meaning of the expressions compulsory deposit, as definedin the Act.

12. No formal notice of the Rule before us has been given tothe Comptroller and Auditor General in his capacity as Administrator of thisFund, and in our opinion it is undesirable that we should decide an importantquestion of law with, out giving that officer an opportunity of being heart, ifhe so desires.

13. On the other hand R. 10 of the Rules of the Fund, as itstands, seems to be, so far as it goes, in the petitioners favour and Oppositeparty has not appeared to show cause.

14. On consideration our order in the circumstances is thatthe Rule before us be made absolute and the attachment originally issued bemaintained or if it has been withdrawn, be reissued, subject, however, toliberty being reserved to the Comptroller and Auditor General, as Administratorof the Fund, to move this Court to discharge the present order and to make suchother or further order as it may think fit.

15. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. We assess thehearing-fee at three gold mohurs.

16. Let the order be sent down without delay. Rule madeabsolute.

.

Raj Kumar Mukharjeevs. W.G. Godfrey (26.01.1922 -CALHC)