IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3550 of 2007 Date of decision:23.03.2009 Punjab Khand Udyog Ltd., Paniar, Gurdaspur ...Petitioners and another versus Shri Sawinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the order passed by the Executing Court on 22.03.2007 rejecting the objections filed by the judgment debtor that the decree stood fully satisfied by passing an order as directed on 05.04.2002 (Annexure P-4). 2. The suit had been filed for declaration that the order of termination made by the defendant Mill company on 23.07.1988 was illegal and for all monetary benefits. The suit was decreed on 11.04.1991 and in appeal by the Mill to the Appellate Court, the decree of the trial Court was confirmed. The decree holder put the decree in execution in the year 1997 seeking for all the monetary benefits applicable to his status of employment and also sought for promotion from skilled 'B' Civil Revision No.3550 of 2007 - 2 - Grade to skilled 'A' grade that fell due in 1988. While all the monetary benefits were calculated in purported satisfaction of the decree, the decree holder still complained that promotion from skilled 'B' grade to skilled 'A' grade had not been given and therefore, the decree still remained not fully executed. Under such circumstances, the Executing Court passed an order on 15.01.2002 to consider the case of promotion of the decree holder from skilled 'B' grade to skilled 'A' grade and pass appropriate orders at the earliest but not later than three months from the date of the order. 3. In pursuance of the directions given by the Executing Court, the judgment debtor passed an order on 05.04.2002 promoting the decree holder from skilled 'B' grade to skilled 'A' grade effective from the date of the passing of the order namely from 15.01.2002. This order according to the decree holder was in full compliance of the decree. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Executing Court was going beyond the terms of the decree in directing promotion to be given which was not one of the decretal in terms. This objection, in my view, does not merit acceptance since the order of termination dated 23.07.1988 had been held to be illegal by the decree and the decree holder was allowed all the benefits accruing from out of such declaration. It transpires that the decree holder had been actually considered for promotion even on 01.06.1988 and he was also indeed promoted but as a result of an enquiry and for alleged proof of misconduct, the order of promotion was withdrawn on 29.06.1988 and ultimately, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 23.07.1988. If he had Civil Revision No.3550 of 2007 - 3- been indeed promoted the order of termination constituted merely an eclipse and when that order of termination was set aside by the decision of the Court, the order of promotion must be taken to have revived in full. 5. The order passed on 05.04.2002 pursuant to a direction from the Executing Court, would have to take effect not merely from the date of passing the order of the Executing Court but has to be from the date of initial order of promotion made on 01.06.1988. There was no basis for giving effect for the promotion only from the date of the order by the Executing Court. It is not the direction of the Executing Court that was made on 15.01.2002 that could be taken as compelling the judgment debtor to give effect to the promotion but it was the decree that was passed on 11.04.1991 as affirmed by the judgment filed by the decree holder that can't the obligation on the judgment debtor to give effect to promotion as the consequence which flowed from the decree finding the order of termination to be null and void. 6. The other objection by the learned counsel is that the executing petition itself was filed beyond the period of 12 years from the date of the decree. The staring point of limitation was not 11.04.1991 when the decree was passed but it had been appealed against and the matter came for conclusion only on 05.09.1995 when the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It is the subsequent date which will be the staring point for reckoning the period of limitation and therefore the contention that the executing petition was barred by limitation is also without in any merit. Civil Revision No.3550 of 2007 - 4- 7. The order of the Executing Court under such circumstances was justified and there is no scope for intervention in revision. 8. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 23.03.2009 sanjeev