Civil Revision No. 2688 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2688 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.07.2011 *** Punjab State Electricity Board,Patiala & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Nagauri Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The dispute involved in the instant civil revision is inter se the petitioners Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and respondents No.2 to 4 i.e. State of Punjab and Health Department with regard to their share of pension, payable to respondent No.1, who initially served respondents No.2 to 4 from 27.5.1963 to 5.10.1970 and then joined the petitioners on 6.10.1970 till he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. By dint of decree dated 1.8.2001 respondent No.1 was held entitled to pension contribution of the required amount after calculating the share of the pension from State of Punjab and after counting service rendered with the Punjab Government for pensionary benefits. An execution for the implementation of the aforesaid decree was filed by respondent No.1-decree holder, during which the property of petitioners was ordered to be attached on 22.4.2006. However, they filed civil revision No. 3870 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 16.3.2007 set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the Executing Court to consider the question “whether the payment of the share of the State has been made to the petitioner-Board or not? and if any such payment has been made, only then to execute the decree against the petitioners. After passing of the aforesaid order, the Executing Court has Civil Revision No. 2688 of 2011 2 now directed the petitioners, vide impugned order dated 23.2.2011, to make the payment to respondent No.1, by observing that respondents No.2 to 4, by depositing their share, has satisfied the decree. Aggrieved with the same instant civil revision has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully. Respondents No.2 to 4 with the deposit of Rs.1200/- only has stated that they have satisfied the decree and now the petitioners have to make the payment of balance amount. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that as per the calculations(Annexure P-3) still an amount of Rs.1,26,515/- is required to be deposited by respondents No.2 to 4. The said calculations were shown to the Executing Court, but the same were not taken into account by it. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that it had not consideration the calculations submitted by the petitioners and only observed that respondents No.2 to 4 herein have already deposited their share of Rs.1200/- and hence the decree is to be executed against the petitioners alone. Nothing has been discussed with regard to the calculations submitted by the petitioners. Even, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, wrong provisions i.e. Rule 10.8 of Chapter 10 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I have been relied upon while exonerating respondents No.2 to 4 of their part liability to satisfy the decree. For the above discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Executing Court below to consider the matter in the light of observations made above. It appears that both the parties are avoiding their liability on the one pretext or the other and the decree, passed way back in 2001 is yet to be satisfied. The Executing Court shall take calculations from respondents No.2 to 4 and objections, if any, to the calculations filed by the petitioners and then to settle the issue by passing a speaking order. The Executing Court shall be at liberty to take the assistance of any Expert, if need be. Disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 12, 2011 Jiten