PUNJAB STATE Vs. KESHAR SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions No.1233 and 1234, both of the year 1994. In both the cases, respondent-Plaintiffs had filed suits on December 24,1987 claiming that they were entitled to the revision of their pay scales w.e.f. the dates they had improved their qualifications as per the Government instructions contained in letter dated July 23, 1957. The Plaintiff in Civil Revision No.1233 of 1994 (Kesar Singh Dhillon) had improved his qualifications on June 16, 1971, whereas Plaintiff in Civil Revision No.1234 of 1994 (Gopal Singh Kalsi) had improved his qualifications on NOvember 25,1961. The suits were decreed on 7.12.1989 and since no appeals were filed by the State against those decrees, the decrees become final between the parties. There have been some litigation earlier on between similarly situated persons like the Plaintiffs in the present cases and the State Government and in view of the various orders passed by this Court/Civil Court, a letter No.663 dated January 18, 1991, was issued by the State Government for implementing those orders regarding the fixation of pay w.e.f. the date of improving the qualification as per the letter dated July 23, 1957. In fact the pay of the petitioners was duly fixed as per the decree of the Court taking into consideration the letter dated January 18, 1991, issued by the State Government but lateron the State Government withdrew that fixation order and in fact started recovery from the Plaintiffs. This, according to the decree holders, was against the decree itself and, therefore, they filed execution applications before the trial Court for executing the decrees. The State Government i.e. the Judgment- debtor filed objection petitions in which various objections were raised. Those objections were rejected vide the impugned orders dated November 23, 1993, in both the cases, which led the State Government to file the present revision petitions.

(2.) In the concluding part of the impugned order dated November 23/1993, the trial Court has observed as under:-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to satisfy me as to why the fixation of the pay of the respondent-plaintiffs as per the decree and the letter No.663 dated January 18, 1991 was in any way erroneous or not in accordance with law. The letter dated January 18, 1991, was issued by the State Government keeping in view the letter dated July 23, 1957, in order to implement various orders of the Courts including this Court. The only other objection raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that while fixing the pay of the respondent-Plaintiffs in accordance with the decree and the letter dated July 23, 1957, read with letter dated January 18, 1991, the Plaintiffs cannot be made entitled for the entire arrears w.e.f. the date they improve their qualification and the arrears can at the most be confined to 38 months prior to the filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent- Plaintiffs has not been able to satisfy me that by virtue of the decree, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to the entire arrears w.e.f. the dates they had improved their qualifications. In fact, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs has fairly concealed before this Court that the arrears have to be confined to 38 months prior to the filing of the suit. Consequently, I dismiss the two revision petitions and uphold the directions given in the concluding para of the impugned orders subject to the rider that the respondent-Plaintiffs (decree holders) shall be entitled to the arrears as calculated vide the above said order of the trial Court for 38 months prior to the filing of the suits (As observed above, the suits were filed on December 24, 1987). There will be no order asto Costs.