Civil Revision No. 3370 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3370 of 2007 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 Harjinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Joginder Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff-decree holder is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 6.10.2006, holding that the execution of the decree dated 13.8.1997 stands fully satisfied. The plaintiff-decree holder filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants are liable to release the payment of salary dues, increment, seniority and to allow the petitioner-plaintiff to join his duties with effect from 1.1.1992 and also decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant the relief as mentioned in the cause title of the suit. The said suit was decreed on 13.8.1997 after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in 1996. The operative part of the decree reads as under:- Civil Revision No. 3370 of 2007 (2) “It is hereby ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to this extent that the plaintiff is entitled to that such salary dues, increments, seniority and other service benefits from 1.1.1992 till the date of his retirement after adjusting any amount if paid by the defendant during this period. Parties are left to bear their own cost.” The appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed. In execution of the aforesaid decree, it was found that a sum of Rs.2,22,054/- towards arrears of salary from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1995; another sum of Rs.11,552/- on account of leave encashment and Rs. 80,352/- on account of gratuity, were paid to the decree holder. Besides, the provisional pension @ Rs.3486/- has also been paid. The decree holder claims proficiency step up on completion of 24 years of service and counting of adhoc service for the purposes of calculation of pension. Both these claims were not subject matter of the decree, the execution of which was pending before the Executing Court. Thus, the decree holder-petitioner cannot be permitted to claim such benefits. Each of such benefit is a separate right, which is required to be agitated in an appropriate Forum. Without crystallization of such right in an adjudication process, the decree holder cannot be permitted to claim benefits which may or may not be available to the plaintiff-petitioner in the execution of the decree aforesaid. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to claim the benefit Civil Revision No. 3370 of 2007 (3) of proficiency step up; adhoc service or any other relief in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30-07-2009 ds