IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 30.06.2010 C.R.No.1691 of 1994 Dharam Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 18.10.1993, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary from the date when his juniors were promoted as Assistant, was declined. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the adverse entry in the confidential report for the year 1978-79 is unwarranted, malafide and against the principles of natural justice. The said suit was decreed on 9.11.1989. The operative part of the decree reads as under : “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that the adverse entry in the confidential report for the year 1978-79 does not pertain to the plaintiff and is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been promoted only on account of adverse entry for the year 1978- 79 recorded in his confidential report. As the adverse entry for the year 1978-79 is not binding upon the plaintiff being not related to him, so the plaintiff is entitled to be considered for promotion.” C.R.No. 1691 of 1994 Consequent to the aforesaid decree, the petitioner was considered for promotion by ignoring the adverse entry in the confidential report for the year 1978-79 w.e.f. 30.10.1979. Subsequently, the petitioner sought arrears of salary from the aforesaid date, which was declined by the Executing Court for the reason that the decree does not survive for execution. A perusal of the operative part of the decree, as reproduced above, does not show that any declaration was granted that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary. The declaration was only granted to the effect that adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report for the year 1978-79 did not pertain to the petitioner. In the absence of any declaration that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary, the petitioner cannot be granted such benefits. Reference may be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mangi Lal Sharma (1998) 2 SCC 510. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 30.06.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2