C.R.No.6912 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6912 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Sat Pal Mechanic ….Petitioner Vs. Haryana Roadways Depot, Yamuna Nagar and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Decree-holder/petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 5.3.2010 (P.1) whereby the learned Executing Court has dismissed his execution application as fully satisfied. Necessary facts in brief are that the plaintiff-petitioner was employed as a Mechanic in the Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar Depot from where he retired on 30.4.2000. He filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled for the basic pay of Rs.700/- per month on 1.7.1979 and 1.1.1987 or equivalent pay to his juniors like Satpal Singh and Bachan Singh Mechanics working in the Yamuna Nagar Depot. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had not given his option at the time of revision of pay scale w.e.f 1.1.1987 and accordingly his pay was fixed. However, under no circumstances, his pay could be fixed lower than the junior. Defendants in their written statement stated that the pay was fixed as per the option exercised by the plaintiff and C.R.No.6912 of 2010 #2# his juniors and once the option had been given, it could not be changed. It was, thus, stated that the pay had been rightly fixed. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.1999 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the junior Sat Pal Singh etc in the same cadre w.e.f 1.1.1987 along with arrears @ 10% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of actual payment. It appears that the judgment was accepted by the defendant department. In the execution application, the Department-judgment debtors took the stand that the entire arrears of salary had been paid to the decree holder after fixing his pay as per the decree passed. On the basis of the pleadings in the execution, the following issues were framed: “1) Whether any junior official of Haryana Roadways of Yamuna Nagar depot is receiving more salary than that of decree holder, if so how much?OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, how much amount decree holder is entitled to get from J.Ds?OPP 3) Whether the present execution is not maintainable?OPD 4) Relief.” Learned Executing Court found that the pay of none of the junior official was fixed as basic pay higher than the petitioner. The basic pay of one junior, namely, Kedar Nath, which was inadvertently fixed at a higher basic pay, was later on reduced and recovery was ordered to be effected and thus anomaly in the pay was removed. Hence, in the absence of any material, it was found that the decree stood totally satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments has failed to point out, from the material on record, as to how the pay of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed or otherwise at a lesser basic pay than his juniors. C.R.No.6912 of 2010 #3# Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 5.3.2010 (P.1) warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE