STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 12.10.1996. Vide this order, the objections raised on behalf of the present petitioners were rejected and the judgment-debtors were directed to calcultate the arrears of pay to the decree holder with interest at the rate of 12% per annum upto the date of decree and 6% per annum upto the date of actual payment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly based his challenge to the impugned order on the following grounds:-

(2.) The respondent herein-plaintiff in the suit had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the order of the Executive Engineer dated 22.9.1969 is illegal, inoperative, ultra vires, and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and the plaintiff be directed to be taken into service. Further he prayed for the recovery of Rs. 335-20P as arrears of salary from 19.10.1969 to 18.12.1969 at the rate of Rs. 146/- per month. The suit was contested by the defendants and ultimately the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ambala City on 28.8.1978. The following was the relief granted by the learned trial Court while passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff:-

(3.) It is conceded before me that the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1978 were assailed in appeal, which was dismissed and the decree has become final interse the parties. Though, the decree holder was reinstated, but according to him, he was not paid the arrears of salary. Consequently he filed Execution Application No. 17/108 of 1986 which continues for all these years. It is in this petition that objections were filed by the present petitioners and they came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.10.1996. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder respondent has submitted that the decree holder was entitled to entire arrears of salary with interest and the learned Executing Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the four corners of law while dismissing the objections of question. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishan Lal Comrade Vs. The Panipat Municipality, Panipat, 7993 (2) RSJ 497.