STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VED PARKASH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is at the instance of the State, who raised an objection at the stage of execution that the decree holder did not have a decree for monetary benefits but he was putting it in execution for recovery of such benefit which was not secured under the decree. The basis of the contention was that the Executing Court itself cannot traverse beyond the terms of the decree and when the decree resulted only in providing for a promotion to the plaintiff, the Trial Court decree specifically denied the monetary benefits and promotion as Deputy Ranger, the execution cannot be levied for the same. The Executing Court however took a leaf as it were from an observation that the Appellate Court, while dismissing an appeal filed by the State against the original decree that monetary benefits were also to be given, found that although the decree prepared by the Appellate Court did not make any provision for grant of monetary benefits and promotion as Deputy Ranger since there was a reference in the judgment about the monetary benefit and entitlement to further promotion to a higher post, they should be taken as having been granted to him. It is against this order that the revision has been filed. There is no difficulty about understanding the proposition that the Executing Court will not traverse beyond the decree and the decree must be seen in the context of what the judgment states. Therefore, there is a need to see what the decree was and whether the essential consideration in the judgment provided for a relief of monetary benefit as well. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for declaratory relief that he was entitled to have a seniority fixed above what was found in the gradation list and for a promotion as a Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 01.01.1982. The judgment in paragraph 23 as follows: -

(2.) THE First Court judgment, therefore, leaves us with no doubt that the Court was specifically taking up a plea which the plaintiff had made with regard to arrears and promotion as Deputy Ranger. This was also reflected in the decree which was passed. When the appeal was filed by the defendant, it must be noticed that there had been no cross appeal or objection by the plaintiff against the denial of relief of promotion as Deputy Ranger and the monetary benefits. The Appellate Court has considered among other portions the following in paragraph 9: -

(3.) IT is on record that the State had preferred an appeal to this Court and on a summary dismissal without notice to the respondent, it had also tried its luck before the Supreme Court and in both the forums, the Government had lost. The Government has not chosen to file grounds of appeal either before this Court or the Supreme Court whether it had challenged the justification for Appellate Court to provide for the promotion to the Deputy Ranger and to the monetary benefits. If the Government's contention were to be accepted, it ought to have been a ground even in the second appeal filed before this Court as well as the SLP to the Supreme Court. The non -filing of the necessary documents namely the grounds of appeal before this Court or the Supreme Court, I would understand, if it is filed so, they were adverse to the Government and therefore, it was not being filed. I had also sought to send for the records of the High Court in that case but they are reported to have been burnt in a fire accident.