Civil Revision No. 2795 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2795 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.4.2010. Gurmej Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 25, 2010 passed by the learned Court below whereby application filed by him under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was dismissed while holding that the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner stood complied with and the delay, if any, therein was duly explained by the respondents and an unconditional apology was also tendered therefor. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff claimed that he was appointed as conductor in Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran on 11.10.1975 and was working with honesty and efficiency. A Civil Suit was filed by him claiming that he was entitled to get the selection grade from 1.1.1986 on the basis of seniority as well as his service record, but the respondents-defendants granted the selection grade to him only w.e.f. 1.1.1991 without assigning any reason. The action of the defendants for non grant of the selection grade to the plaintiff w.e.f. 1.1.1986 was illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable. It was further pleaded that some other conductors namely, Kewal Singh No. 19, Gurmej Singh No. 7 and Sajjan Singh No. 26, who were much junior to the plaintiff but had been given selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.86. Plaintiff made repeated requests to the defendants for grant of selection grade to him w.e.f. 1.1.86 and even a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was served upon the defendants but to no effect. Learned Court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly and directed the defendants to consider the case of the plaintiff for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 afresh and to pass a reasoned order in this regard within a period of six months from the date of judgment and decree. After the passing of the judgment and decree, dated April 01, 2004 Civil Revision No. 2795 of 2010 2 the petitioner filed application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which was decided by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the terms of the decree the respondents were required to pass a reasoned order within six months from the date of decree. The time having expired on October 1, 2004 and no order having been passed the respondents were required to be dealt with in terms of provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. He further submitted that it is the admitted case of the respondents themselves that the decree was complied with more than one year after its passing i.e. on April 1, 2004. He further referred to the order passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, on April 22, 2005 to submit that the same was non speaking and the issues raised by the petitioner had not been considered. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the terms of decree passed in his favour and for that the respondents were required to be punished. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Firstly the merits of the order passed in consequence to the direction given in favour of the petitioner in the decree passed on April 1, 2004 cannot be gone into in the execution proceedings. The petitioner may or may not be satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the order passed. In case he is not satisfied he has his remedies against that. As far as delay in passing of the order is concerned, the same was duly explained by the respondents before the learned Court below and considering the explanation to be reasonable and bonafide and the delay being not willful and further the respondents having tendered their unconditional apology, the learned Court below did not find any reason to proceed against the respondents for violation of terms of decree, which in my opinion, does not call for any interference. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 29.4.2010. JUDGE Reema