MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JAGADHARI Vs. VED PARKASH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the executing Court dated 26th February, 1990 whereby it was held that the decree-holder is entitled for the back salary and other emoluments etc. and at the same time also allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon.

(2.) Plaintiff Ved Parkash filed the suit for declaration that his retrenchment by the defendant-committee was illegal and, therefore he continues in service together with the payment of amount that may be found due to the plaintiff after going though the accounts being rendered by the defendant on account of the pay, dearness allowance, increments, provident fund etc. The said suit was decreed partially and a decree for declaration that the retrenchment of the plaintiff made by the Municipal Committee is illegal was passed and it was also decreed that the plaintiff continues in service of the defendant. However, as regards the relief for rendition of accounts and for payment of the amount that may be found due on account of the pay and allowances, the suit was dismissed with the observation that the plaintiff should have claimed a specific amount by way of consequential relief and as he has failed to prove as to what amount is due to him on account of pay and allowances and has not paid Court fee thereon the said relief is disallowed. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties filed separate appeals. Both the appeals were dismissed, by the learned senior Sub Judge exercising enhanced appellate powers vide order dated 31st May, 1978. As regards the cross-appeal, it was observed that the plaintiff could not show any law that the rendition of accounts could be claimed against the employee. He could claim a specific amount for arrears which he has not claimed. Therefore, the finding on this issue also stands affirmed. A Regular Second Appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed in this Court as Regular Second Appeal No. 1292 of 1989 on behalf of the Municipal Committee. In appeal, cross-objections were not filed on behalf of plaintiff Ved Parkash. In the said Regular Second Appeal, the judgment and decree of the two Courts below were maintained.

(3.) Now the decree-holder sought execution of the decree for declaration passed in his favour. In that execution, objections were filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor-Municipal Committee that since no decree was passed for payment of back wages, the execution application was not maintainable. The learned executing Court found that the objections are not maintainable and the decree for declaration as such was executable and the decree-holder is entitled for the back salary and other emoluments. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment-debtor-Municipal Committee has filed petition in this Court.