Civil Revision No. 916 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 916 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.08.2009 The State of Punjab and another ....Petitioners versus Manjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vijay Gopal Dogra, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, on an execution application moved by the respondent-decree holder. The respondent-decree holder was appointed as Special Police Officer. However, before he could be absolved as Constable, he was ordered to be dismissed from service. The decree holder filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief. The suit was decreed and the order of dismissal was held to be null and void and the decree holder was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondent-decree holder was taken back in Civil Revision No. 916 of 2009 -2- service, and subjected to physical fitness test on 20.1.2002. He was allotted constabulary number w.e.f. 6.9.2002, as per his seniority in the suitability test. The respondent-decree holder moved for execution of the decree on the ground that the consequential relief in terms of the decree was not granted to him. The learned Executing Court found as a fact that junior to the decree holder was adjusted/promoted as Constable w.e.f. 3.11.1997, whereas the respondent-decree holder was being discriminated by denying him the consequential benefit of the decree. The learned Executing Court allowed the petition and directed the judgment-debtors to promote/adjust the decree-holder as Constable w.e.f. 3.11.1997 i.e. the date when his junior was adjusted/promoted as Constable. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtors challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court primarily on the ground, that there was no direction for promotion/adjustment of the decree holder as Constable, therefore, the impugned order could not be sustained, as the learned Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The contention of the learned State counsel is totally mis- conceived. The decree passed was for declaration with all consequential benefits arising therefrom, therefore, the decree holder had a right of consideration for being adjusted/promoted as Constable from the date his junior was promoted. It is not in dispute, that the decree holder was subjected to suitability test, which he cleared on 20.1.2002. The learned Executing Court, therefore, was right in directing the State to grant Civil Revision No. 916 of 2009 -3- constabulary number to the decree holder w.e.f. 3.11.1997 i.e. the date when his junior was promoted. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that there are 33 persons senior to the decree holder and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, also cannot be accepted. The judgment-debtors in order to deny the benefit to the appellant are taking seniority of the Constables from the date of suitability test. Once the decree holder could not undergo suitability test with the persons appointed with him, for the reason that he was wrongly dismissed, he could not be put to dis-advantage merely because he was put to suitability test only after the judgment and decree was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 19, 2009 R.S.