Civil Revision No. 623 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 623 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.08.2010 Ram Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the learned Executing Court, vide which the execution application filed by the petitioner has been disposed off as satisfied. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration, to the effect that the action of the defendants, in not granting the benefits of military service, to the plaintiff after the plaintiff joined the service of the State of Punjab as Clerk, in the matter of seniority, pay, increments, promotion etc., is illegal, wrong, against rules, principles of natural justice, equity and fair play as well as against the spirit of instructions issued by the State, from time to time, and consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to all service benefits after giving benefits of military service to the plaintiff, and that the pay of the plaintiff/petitioner, is to be refixed Civil Revision No. 623 of 2009 -2- after taking into consideration the basic pay last drawn by the plaintiff in the Army. The suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was decreed by the learned trial Court. State of Punjab preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, modified the decree and passed the following decree: - “It is ordered that the appellants are directed to refix the pay of the respondent after giving him the benefits of the military service rendered by him from the period 7.5.64 to 10.1.68 as he is entitled to get benefits for this period only with regard to his seniority, pay, increments etc. However, the respondent shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount due. So far as the plea of the Govt. Pleader that the suit filed by Ram Singh was time barred, is without any substance in as much as, cause of action in the instant suit is a recurring cause of action which accrues to the respondent every month. The findings of the court of first instance on issues no.1 and 2 are confirmed except the above said modification. The appeal filed by the appellants fails and the same is dismissed except the above said modification.” The petitioner did challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, and the decree has attained finality. The petitioner thereafter filed execution application claiming benefits under the decree. The benefits due to the petitioner under the decree stand paid. The learned Executing Court dismissed the application as satisfied. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that all dues of the petitioner have not Civil Revision No. 623 of 2009 -3- yet been paid, as the petitioner was entitled to fixation of his pay by taking into consideration the basic pay last drawn by the plaintiff/petitioner in the Army. In support of this plea, the petitioner placed reliance on Annexure P/4 i.e. instructions of the State Government with regard to fixation of pay of Government employees appointed by transfer/open selection etc. from one service to another. Prima facie these instructions are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as his appointment was not by transfer or open selection etc. from one service to another, but by way of direct appointment. The petitioner was entitled to benefits for the service rendered in the Army for the purpose of seniority, increment etc., which have been granted. In any case, it was not within the jurisdiction of the learned Executing Court to modify the decree. The learned Executing Court is bound by the decree, and is bound to execute it strictly in terms thereof. The petitioner was not entitled to fixation of his pay by taking into consideration the basic pay drawn by him in the Army as per the decree passed, therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Executing Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 20, 2010 R.S.