Civil Appeal Nos 33763382 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 26111987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal
Delhi in T Nos 950 961 972 986 1049 94 1198 of 1985 and T No 383 of 1986
BB Barua Aruneshwar Gupta and Ms A Subhashini for the Appellants
Juse P Verghese KN Rai and NN Sharma for the Re spondents
These appeals arose out of the judgment and order dated November 26 1987 passed by the Central Adminis trative Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi directing that the petitioners respondents in these appeals will be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand J in the writ petitions CWP Nos
278 of 1978 and 937 of 1978
The matrix of the case in short is that the services of the respondents who were appointed as constables in Delhi Police in the years 1964 66 were terminated because of their participation in the agitation along with other police constables in April 1967
In view of the public controversy and in deference to the views expressed in Parliament a large number of agitating constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants
Later in view of the assurance given in the Parliament by the then Home Minister prosecu tions were withdrawn and the dismissed constables were reinducted into service
Some of the dismissed constables filed Civil Writ Petition Nos 2669 and 10670 in the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by its judgment dated October 1 1975 quashed the order of termination and the petitioners in that case were declared to be throughout in service
The Police Administration preferred separate ap peals being LPA Nos 24 and 25 of 1976
Both these appeals were dismissed as barred by time and the judgment of the High Court dated October 1 1975 became final
Subsequently some other constables whose services were similarly terminated but were not reinstated in service even as fresh entrants filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi being CWP Nos 270 and 937 of 1978
These writ peti tions were heard by Anand J who rejected the contention raised by the respondents in the writ petitions regarding the delay and latches in moving the writ petitions allowed the writ petitions quashing the impugned order of termina tion declaring that the petitioners will be deemed to have been in service and would be treated as such subject to certain conditions
The Police 95 Administration filed LPA against this judgment which was dismissed on August 29 1983
Thereafter the respondents herein filed the writ petitions in the High Court against the order of termination of their services praying for quashing of the orders of termination and for reinstating them in service with effect from the respective dates of their termination of services and to treat them as being in service throughout and to award them all consequential benefits
These writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Delhi
The Tribunal while rejecting the plea of the respondents that the peti tioners should be denied any relief because of delay and latches held that the claims of the petitioners respondents in these appeals was identical to the claim of the peti tioners in CWP Nos 270 and 937 of 1978 whose petitions were allowed by the High Court of Delhi
The Tribunal further held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief as was granted to the petitioners by Anand J in C W P Nos
270 and 937 of 1978
Against this judgment and order the instant appeals on leave have been filed before this Court
We have heard learned counsel for the parties
Consider ing facts and circumstances as well as the judgment rendered by Anand J in CWP Nos 270 and 937 of 1978 we dismiss the appeals and confirm the judgment and order dated November 26 1987 of the Tribunal with the modification that the respondents excepting respondent No 24 Kanwal Singh who is dead will file affidavits stating whether they had been gainfully employed or not during the period of the termina tion of service and if so employed they will state further in the affidavits the period of such employment
The appel lants may verify the same and will be at liberty to deduct the pay and allowances during the period such gainful em ployment while determining the arrears of salary and allow ances for the period of termination
We however make it clear that for the purposes of seniority promotion and retiral benefits the entire period between termination and reinstatement shall be taken into account
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appel lants that all the respondents have already been reinstated in service and they are now working
The respondent No 24 however has expired and the back wages have already been paid to his widow
In the facts circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeals dis missed


Summary:
In 1944 the respondent instituted a suit for the recovery of money due under an award dated July 31 1935 whereby the appellant and his brother were directed to pay a certain amount to the respondent
The suit was dismissed by the trial Court 238 but on appeal the High Court passed a decree on March 9 1951
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act 1938 was amended by Act XXIII of 1948 which inter alia by adding sub section 2 to section 19 of the main Act enabled decrees passed after the commencement of the Act to be scaled down under the provisions of the Act
By cl
ii to section 16 of the amending Act which came into force on January 25 1949 it was provided that  that the amendments made by this Act shall apply to  all suits and proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act in which no decree or order has been passed before such commencement 
On October 5 1951 the appellant made an application to the trial court for scaling down the decremental debt under section 192 Of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act 1938 as amended but the application was dismissed on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to act under that sub section as the decree sought to be scaled down had been passed by the High Court
The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court and also made a separate application for scaling down the decretal debt under section 192 Of the Act
The High Court took the view that section 192 was controlled by section 16 of the amending Act and that cl
ii of section 16 was applicable to the case but that as the appellant whose appeal was pending at the commencement of the amending Act did not apply for scaling down before the decree was passed although he had the opportunity to do so his application subsequent to the decree was barred by the principle of Yes judicature
Held that the High Court erred in its view that in order to get relief under section 192 Of the Act read with cl
ii of section 16 of the amending Act the appellant must have made the application when the appeal was pending and before a decree had been passed
For the application of cl
ii of section 16 of the amending Act the true test is whether the suit or proceeding was instituted before January 25 1949 and whether no decree or order for repayment of a debt had been passed before that date and it is not necessary that the suit or proceeding should be pending on the date of the application under section 192 Of the Act
In cases covered by that clause a party can ask for relief under the Act at two stages before a decree for repayment of the debt bad been passed and also after such a decree had been passed and since section 192 of the Act in express terms enables a debtor to claim a relief under the provisions of the Act after a decree had been passed the appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 192 of the Act read with section i6 cl
ii of the amending Act
While cl
ii of section i6 applies to suits and proceedings which were instituted before January 25 1949 but in which no decree or order had been passed or the decree or final order passed had not become final before that date cl
iii applies to decrees or orders which though they had become final before January 25 239 1949 were still in the state of unfinished execution and at the stage at which satisfaction had not been fully received
Venkataratnam vs Seshatnma 1
L R  approved
The question whether cl
ii refers to decrees and orders of a declaratory nature which are not executable but which have become final before January 25 1949 left open
The opinion expressed in jagannatham Chetty vs Parthasarathy Iyengar AIR 1953 Mad 777 that the word proceedings  in section i6 of the amending Act must relate to proceedings instituted for repayment of a debt and not to execution proceedings which are for enforcement of a decree or order doubted and the question left open