IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 20, 2008 Executive Engineer, Comand Area Development Authority, Rewari Division, Rewari, Haryana ....Petitioner Versus 1. Nathu Ram @ Nathu Singh s/o Jagam (proforma respondent) 2. Bhim Singh son of Jaswant Singh, r/o Areend, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The suit filed by Nathu Ram and Bhim Singh-respondents for the grant of mandatory injunction so as to direct the petitioner to entertain their joining report of reporting back to their original station and to assign them duties as Drivers, besides making of payment of the wages so withheld and payment of further wages and for a decree of permanent injunction so as to restrain the petitioner from obstructing them from performing their duties and withholding the past and future wages, salary and other benefits of service was decreed with costs by the trial Court on 11.2.2005. The petitioner along with other defendants were ordered to release the withheld pay, wages and salary along with Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 -2- interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Appeal filed by the petitioner and other defendants was dismissed with costs by first appellate Court on 25.1.2007. Even Regular Second Appeal No. 2643 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was confined to the extent of awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum was allowed to that extent on 24.8.2007. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on the issue of withholding of wages and salary of the respondents were affirmed, however, the petitioner was directed to pay interest to the respondents at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount so calculated by them, instead of 12%, as awarded by the learned Courts below. It was also directed that the withheld wages and salary, besides the interest at the rate of 9% per annum be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a payment of Rs. 82,536/- to Bhim Singh- respondent No. 2 by way of cheque No. 056908 dated 4.9.2007. It appears that after the decreeing of the suit by the trial Court, the respondents had filed an application for execution of the decree. The said application was, however, decided on 5.4.2008 when the judgment debtors were directed to pay the interest on the decretal amount as per the final judgment passed by the High Court on 24.8.2007. The department was required to pay the interest from 20.4.1994 till 4.9.2007. However, the department had paid interest only for the period from 20.4.1994 to 5.3.1996. The petitioner chose to challenge the order of the executing Court by filing an appeal, which was partly allowed on 5.8.2008 to the extent that the petitioner was required to pay Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 -3- interest from 6.3.1996 to 24.8.2007, i.e. the date when the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree. The petitioner has now filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court while decreeing the suit directed the payment of withheld pay, wages and salary along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and these findings were maintained by the lower appellate Court on 25.1.2007. However, in R.S.A. No. 2643 of 2007 this Court reduced the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 9% per annum and directed the petitioner and others to pay the withheld wages and salary alongwith interest at the said rate. There was no direction that the interest had to be paid on the decretal amount till its final realization. The interest was required to be paid only for the period for which the pay, wages and salary had been withheld and such an interest has been duly paid to Bhim Singh-respondent when cheque No. 056908 dated 4.9.2007 for an amount of Rs. 82,536/- was handed over to him and, that too, within a period of three months as required by the High Court. Therefore, the appellate executing Court could not have directed the payment of interest at the rate of 9% on the decretal amount from 6.3.1996 upto 24.8.2007 when R.S.A. No. 2643 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 -4- interest could have been awarded to the respondents on the withheld amount as the word used in Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure is “the Court may in the decree, order interest” to be paid on the principal sum adjudged and, thus, left it to the discretion of the Court. The Court may or may not order interest on the decretal amount. The respondents, who were appointed as work charge employees, were regularized with effect from 1.4.1979. In response to reference of the Superintending Engineer, JLN, Command Lining Circle, CADA, Narnaul dated 19.4.1994 they were transferred out of the circle. Their pay, wages and salary were wrongly withheld from 20.4.1994 to 5.3.1996. They were, accordingly, held entitled to the release of the same along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by the learned trial Court. The said findings were upheld by first appellate Court. Even in second appeal they were held entitled to the withheld salary but rate of interest was reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Bhim Singh- respondent was entitled to the interest on the withheld amount only for the period for which his pay, wages and salary had not been paid. Once his suit had been decreed, the decretal amount had to be paid along with interest and the interest accrued till the payment of the decretal amount, meaning thereby that the interest was required to be paid not only upto 5.3.1996 but upto 24.8.2007 when the High Court had disposed of the second appeal of the petitioner and other defendants on merit. Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 -5- The issue regarding grant of interest on the decretal amount has attained the finality as R.S.A. No. 2643 of 2007 filed by the petitioner stands dismissed and the decree holders were held entitled to the grant of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the decretal amount. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It appears that by wrongly interpreting the relief granted to respondent No. 2 by the Court, the petitioner starting asserting that the said respondent was entitled to the interest only from 20.4.1994 upto 5.3.1996. It is not the case of the petitioner that the decretal amount was paid on 5.3.1996. On the other hand, perusal of cheque (Annexure P.4) would show that it was issued on 4.9.2007 for an amount of Rs. 82,536/- in favour of Bhim Singh-respondent. Along with the cheque, calculation of interest was also supplied by the petitioner to Bhim Singh and the same shows that the interest had been paid from 20.4.1994 to 5.3.1996 only and not upto 24.8.2007. An amount of, approximately, Rs. 75,000/- on account of pay, wages and salary of Bhim Singh-respondent for the period from 20.4.1994 to 5.3.1996 was withheld by the petitioner without any sufficient cause and, that too, for a period of more than 12 years when the same was paid. Said Bhim Singh at the relevant time had been working as a Driver. He would have found it difficult to fend for his family, as his only source of income had been wrongly stopped by the petitioner and others. Civil Revision No. 6438 of 2008 -6- Even after the passing of the decree, the petitioner paid the amount of the withheld pay, wages and salary but did not pay interest thereon from 20.4.1994 to 24.8.2007. It remained content with payment of interest from 20.4.1994 to 5.3.1996, little realizing that the decretal amount consisting of withheld pay, wages and salary was paid only on 4.9.2007. Under these circumstances, this Court is constrained to impose special costs of Rs. 5,000/- upon the petitioner, who instead of respecting the decision of the Court directing payment of decretal amount along with interest upto 24.8.2007 and not only upto 5.3.1996 is insisting upon the fact that respondent is entitled to interest upto 5.3.1996 and chosen to file present revision petition. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be paid by the concerned Executive Engineer, who issued the calculations Ex. P.4 (Colly.) or agreed with the same so as to release payment of interest only upto 5.3.1996 instead of upto 24.8.2007. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 20, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO