STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GOVERDHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.1993 of the executing court whereby it has granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of salary and allowances payable to the respondent.

(2.) Decree holder-respondent filed a suit challenging his dismissal from service. Suit was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22.2.1988. Challenge to the decree passed by the trial Court upto the Supreme Court and ultimately, the decree holder filed an application before the executing court seeking execution of the decree. It was submitted before the executing court that the decree passed in favour of the decree holder was that the order dated 19.1.1983 dismissing him from service was illegal and void and he is deemed to be in service from the date of his dismissal and is entitled to all service benefits attached to the post. It was also submitted that the decree holder was entitled to the payment of arrears of salary and allowances with effect from the date of his dismissal and is also entitled to that payment with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. On behalf of the judgment debtors, however, it was submitted that the decree holder was entitled to the arrears for 38 months only and no interest was payable thereon because it has not been granted by the Court decreeing the suit. Learned executing Court on a consideration of the matter, however, ordered payment of arrears w.e.f. 19.1.1993 and also granted interest at the. rate of 12% per annum thereon, by order dated 19.3.1993. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court had not granted any interest on the payment of arrears payable to the decree holder and thus the executing court was not justified in granting the same and it could not go behind the decree and is bound to execute the same as it is. Learned Counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on State of Punjab and Ors. v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2177. In the reported case, it was held as under:-