HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM AND OTHERS Vs. VASDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT debtors (JDs) - Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam and its officers have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short -CPC) impugning order dated 06.10.2004 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Executing Court thereby directing the JDs to pay the amount of two special increments to decree -holder (DH) -respondent Vasdev, on completion of 8 and 18 years of service. Suit filed by respondent against petitioners was partly decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.08.1996 (Annexure P -2). In appeal preferred by the plaintiff -respondent against judgment and decree of the trial court, learned lower appellate court, vide judgment dated 02.06.1997 (Annexure P -3), granted additional relief to the respondent. Concluding paragraph no. 11 of the judgment (Annexure P -3) is reproduced hereunder: -

(2.) RESPONDENT DH filed execution petition, wherein he claimed the benefit of two special increments on completion of 8 and 18 years of service. JDs resisted the said claim alleging that grant of special increments to the DH was declined vide order dated 09.01.1996 (Annexure P -4) and order dated 27.03.1996 (Annexure P -5) by the competent authority. Learned Executing Court, however, did not accept the said plea of the JDs and accordingly directed the JDs to pay the amount of the said special increments. Feeling aggrieved, JDs have filed this revision petition to challenge the order (Annexure P -1) passed by the Executing Court.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contended that the learned lower appellate court, in judgment Annexure P -3, granted the benefit of two special increments to the DH, 'as per rules of the department'. It was pointed out that the DH was found not entitled to the said special increments as per rules of the department (JDs) because of his unsatisfactory record of service, as mentioned in orders Annexures P -4 and P -5, his integrity being doubtful, and therefore, DH is not entitled to special increments in the execution proceedings. It was also pointed out that the DH, in the suit, had not even claimed the benefit of special increments, as is evident from the prayer made by the DH in his suit, as reproduced in paragraph 2 of the revision petition.