CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 4.5.2009 1.CWP No.902 of 1989 Smt.Bhupinder Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents 2.CWP No.12449 of 1989 Som Raj ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Lalit Trishul & Ms.Poonam Sambhar, Advocates for the petitioners Mr.Yatinder Sharma AAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.902 of 1989 & 12449 of 1989 as questions of law and facts are identical in both the writ petitions. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.902/1989. CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 2 In CWP No.902/1989, the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk on 18.12.1973 in the office of Excise and Taxation Officer, Patiala. The appointment was temporary. She was allowed to continue upto 1978 and regularised on 31.1.1978. Later the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 3.11.1978 w.e.f. 27.10.1978. She was again re-engaged on 7.11.1978 and again ordered to be terminated on 2.12.1978. The petitioner challenged both the termination orders i.e. dated 3.11.1978 and 2.12.1978 in the Civil Suit filed before the Court of Additional Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.1981. The petitioner preferred an appeal being CA No.488 of 31.10.1981 in the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala. The appeal was allowed and suit filed by petitioner decreed resultantly both the termination orders were set aside, vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.1984. RSA No.1353/1985 filed against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Patiala was also dismissed vide order dated 16.5.1985 passed by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 17.10.1985 and she joined the duty on 18.10.1985. The petitioner filed Execution Application No.113/22.9.1986 before the Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala for recovery of an amount of Rs.98,721.80 as arrears of salary and interest @ 12% p.a. During the pendency of the Execution petition, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs.63,700/- as the actual amount of arrears due to the petitioner, but no interest was paid. The executing court vide its order dated 31.10.1988 disposed of the execution petition holding that since the learned District Judge had not given any express direction for payment of 12% interest on arrears, the same was not due to the petitioner. The order dated 31.10.1988 passed by the Execution Court reads as under:- CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 3 “D.H. Has filed this execution petition on the basis of judgment in her favour in which her termination was set aside and she was ordered to be reinstated in service and the D.H. has claimed the amount of Rs.98721.80 p. including the interest amounting to Rs.33,000/- during the pendency of this petition. In the month of January, 1987 amount of Rs.63700/- was paid to the D.H. towards the decree the amount and now present petition remains only for claiming of interest and this point has been contested by J.D asserting that no interest was allowed in decree and as such D.H is not entitled to interest as having been claiming by the D.H. 2.The counsel for the DH and G.P for the State have been heard. 3.Since no compound interest as claimed by the D.H has been allowed by any of the court, D.H is not entitled to interest amounting to Rs.3300/- calculated by her. Since rest of the above claim claimed by her has been paid, this execution petition is dismissed as fully satisfied. File be consigned to the record room. sd/-D.S.Mahiwal, Sub Judge 1st Class,Patiala” Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction for payment of the interest on the amount of arrears admittedly received by the petitioner during the pendency of the execution petition. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that the decree did not provide any interest and thus no interest is CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 4 payable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in the case of R.S.Sehgal vs. Union of India and others, 1985 (2) SLR 285. In this case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner and he was compulsorily retired by the Government of India. He challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court while allowing the writ petition passed following order:- “The departmental proceedings together with the impugned order are declared void and are set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential reliefs, financial and otherwise. All the said benefits should be restored to the petitioner within 2 months from today. Since the petitioner had now retired his pension papers will also have to be finalized quickly.” The payments were made to the said petitioner thereafter without interest. The aforesaid petitioner accordingly filed CWP No.4305 of 1983 before this Court which came to be decided in the above mentioned reported judgment with the following observations:- “4. I thus allow this petition and direct the respondent authorities to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12 per cent on the above noted amounts for the period the said amounts were withheld by those authorities, within a period of four months from today. The petitioner is also held entitled to the costs of this petition which I determine at Rs.500/-.” The case of the present petition is totally distinct from the aforesaid CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 5 case. While allowing the earlier writ petition, Delhi High Court has categorically granted all financial and other benefits to the petitioner therein. Interpreting the aforesaid judgment, this Court granted interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner is based upon a decree passed by the District Judge. It is admitted position that no interest has been granted under the decree. Executing Court, the competent Forum has declined to grant any interest as the decree did not provide for it. The issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this court passed in the case of M/s Punjab Tourism Development Corporation vs. Balwant Singh, 1989 (3) SLR 775 wherein it has been observed as under:- “5.After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the view taken by the executing court is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. The executing court could not go beyond the decree. Admittedly, there was no direction in the decree for making payment of the arrears of salary with interest. The judgments referred to above have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case. The executing court had no jurisdiction to allow interest because of the delayed payment, if any. In 1985 (2) SLR 285 it was in a writ petition that this Court directed payment of interest. Similar was the position in 1985(1) SLR 750, where the Supreme Court maintained the order of the High Court granting 6 per cent interest on the delayed release in pension. Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the CWP NOS.902 & 12449 OF 1989 6 objections filed on behalf of judgment-debtors are allowed with costs.” In view of the aforesaid observations of this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. Otherwise also, the writ petition is not maintainable for the simple reason that the relief is sought on the basis of a decree of the Civil Court (District Judge) which stands satisfied under the orders of Executing Court. No relief can be granted in the writ petition after decree is satisfied. Consequently, I find no merit in both the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on record on each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 4.5..2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES