C.R.No.2349 of 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2349 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 2. C.R. No.5767 of 1998 Punjab State and another .....Petitioners Versus Sh. Rohini Kumar ....Respondent Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Indu Bali, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The twin revision petitions are connected in that they relate to the execution of the same decree and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the civil revisions are taken up together for disposal. 2. The decree-holder had obtained a decree in case No.19 of 1990 that his seniority position shall be determined with reference to his service in the Stores Division as on 20.09.1961 and he was entitled to be treated as senior to one Tarsem Lal. On such basis, the order of promotion granted to Tarsem Lal as Superintendent was set aside and the decree-holder was admitted to be entitled for the post as C.R.No.2349 of 1997 (O&M) -2- Superintendent with monetary benefits. While this decree had the effect of unsettling the seniority of three other persons namely of K.K. Handa and two others, the latter had independently filed a suit for declaration that the decree obtained by the decree-holder would not bind them and that they were entitled to be treated as seniors to the decree-holder. The suit filed by K.K. Handa and others was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendants were later withdrawn. The decree-holder's contention was that the decree obtained by K.K. Handa and two others did not render the decree obtained by him to be totally invalid but had merely the effect of not upsetting the seniority of K.K. Handa and two others. The decree was put in execution by the decree-holder complaining of the inaction on the part of the judgment-debtor/State from giving effect to the decree by placing him to the post of a Superintendent on the day when Tarsem Lal was promoted to the post and non-payment of monetary benefits that accrued to him at the promotion post. 3. It appears that after the initial direction was given by the Executing Court for release of the monetary benefits that order was challenged by the State in C.R. No.2349 of 1997 but no stay had been granted and consequently the execution proceedings were taken up further when yet another order was passed by the Executing Court on 21.11.1998 directing the defendant-judgment debtor to grant the promotion and other consequential benefits to the decree-holder. This subsequent order came to be challenged in Civil Revision No.5767 of 1998. 4. It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for the State that C.R.No.2349 of 1997 (O&M) -3- during the pendency of the civil revision, the amount as directed to be paid in the order was paid before the Executing Court on 20.11.1997. The decree-holder himself is reported to have been superannuated and later expired and there is no question of giving effect to the decree by promoting him physically. However, all the benefits that would have accrued to him, if he had been alive, must be calculated by treating the decree-holder as having been promoted on the day when Tarsem Lal was promoted and give to the legal representatives all the monetary benefits that would accrue to the promotion post. The terminal benefits will also be calculated on the same basis. There is no need for interference with the orders of the Executing Court and it shall be now only the responsibility of the State to calculate the benefits that accrued by virtue of the decree and make suitable payments to the legal representatives of the decreased decree-holder in the manner known to law. 5. The revision petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2009 Pankaj*