CR No.345 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.345 of 2007 Date of Decision: 30.10.2008 Satnam Singh ....Petitioner Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.VikasBahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Muktsar vide CR No.345 of 2007 2 which execution application filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed by accepting the objections filed by the judgment debtors. The petitioner decree holder filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief to seek direction for promotion from the date his junior was promoted. The suit was decreed on 19.3.1991. Appeal filed by the judgment debtor was also dismissed. The judgment debtors preferred Regular Second appeal before this court which was decided on 14.11.2003 and in pursuance to the judgment and decree as modified by this court the petitioner was promoted. Judgment debtors filed objections to the execution application on the plea that the judgment and decree was modified by this court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003 and in view of the modification of the decree by this court the petitioner was not entitled to arrears on account of promotion. Plea of res judicata was also raised as the present execution application was filed during the pendency of the earlier execution application. It was also claimed that the petitioner concealed material facts from this court. In the Regular Second Appeal the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was modified and it was held that the case of the petitioner for promotion as AAE be considered from the date his junior were promoted i.e 15.1.1979. The said consideration was ordered to be done on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It was also directed that needful be done within 3 months. In pursuance to the decree passed by thiscourt, an order was CR No.345 of 2007 3 passed on 12.2.2004 promoting the petitioner w.e.f. 15.1.1979 but arrears of salary were denied to the decree holder. The petitioner preferred a writ petition for directing the judgment debtors to release all the consequential benefits to him w.e.f. 15.1.1979 and also for quashing the order dated 12.2.2004. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this court with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice issued by the petitioner by passing a speaking order within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. In compliance to the said order dated 3.8.2004 passed by this court a speaking order was passed on 12.10.2004 vide which claim of the decree holder to arrears of pay and allowances with interest from 15.1.1979 was rejected. The petitioner preferred a contempt petition in this court which was disposed of in view of the fact that the decision on legal notice was already taken and nothing more survived. The petitioner thereafter filed CWP No.10258 of 2005 to challenge the order dated 12.10.2004. Said writ petition was also dismissed and it was held that there was no decree in favour of the petitioner granting him arrears of salary which was sought to be enforced. It may be noticed here that the order dated 12.10.2004 denying the arrears of pay along with interest was challenged by the petitioner. Said writ petition was also disposed of by this court and the order dated 12.10.2004 was not set aside. CR No.345 of 2007 4 On an earlier occasion objections filed by the judgment debtors were dismissed and warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued and bank accounts of the judgment debtors were attached. However, the order dismissing the objections was set aside by this court vide order dated 14.2.2006. In view of the facts stated above, learned Executing Court observed that there was no decree in favour of the petitioner which could be executed as order dated 12.10.2004 was in full force and was not set aside by any order. Mr.Vikas Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a poor man who has been made to suffer in spite of decree being in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree passed by the civil court allowed consequential benefits to the petitioner. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. In Regular Second Appeal this Court accepted the statement made by the State Counsel that the petitioner would be promoted, could not be treated to be one which modified the decree. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the High Court was to be read with the decree of the civil court and thus, the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits. However, this plea cannot be accepted. The High Court in Regular Second Appeal modified the decree passed by the civil court and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion CR No.345 of 2007 5 from the date his juniors were promoted within a period of 3 months. Thus, there was no decree allowing consequential benefits as it was for the judgment debtors to have decided the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance to the decree passed by the civil court as modified by the High Court a decision was taken to promote the petitioner. It was specifically mentioned in the order that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of pay in pursuance to his promotion on the principle 'no work no pay'. It is not in dispute that the petitioner challenged the said order but the same was not set aside. Plea of the petitioner that the observations of the court that the petitioner could execute the decree amounted to acceptance of his claim is totally misconceived. Reading of the order of this court would show that the petitioner in the writ petition did not challenge the impugned order but claimed that there was civil court decree in his favour granting consequential relief though there was none. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was repealed by observing that the petitioner could seek execution in case there was any decree. Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of misrepresentation before this court to the effect that there was a decree granting consequential relief in his favour though there was no such decree after the decree stood modified by this court. Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contented that the relief of consequential benefits was denied to CR No.345 of 2007 6 the petitioner on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the law with respect to the principle of 'no work no pay' stood overruled and therefore, the impugned order could not come in the way of the petitioner to claim consequential benefits. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bani Singh Yadav 2005 (1) S.C.T. 355; Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1997 (2) S.C.T.278; Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1997 (1) S.C.T. 405 and the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal 2004 (4) S.C.T. 350. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner being misconceived is liable to be rejected. The Learned Executing Court while dismissing the execution application was not considering the validity of the order passed by the respondents in denying the consequential benefits. The learned Executing Court was merely to see the decree passed. In the present case, there is no decree in favour of the petitioner granting consequential benefits as claimed. The civil suit filed by the petitioner was finally decreed by this court by directing the judgment debtors to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion within a period specified therein. The decree passed by this court, thus, stood satisfied the CR No.345 of 2007 7 movement an order was passed giving him promotion. The order denying consequential benefits to the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner but no relief was granted. Thus, the order stands upheld by this court and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file execution application to seek consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panna Lal Tayal Vs. State ofM.P. 1975 (2) S.L.R.527 to contend that the claim of declaration by the Government servant regarding service matter would include consequential relief by implication. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner impliedly meant that he was entitled to consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Kumar and another Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 147 contended that once judgment laying down the principle of 'no work no pay' was set aside by subsequent judgment the law as existed prior to and thereafter was to be applied. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that the order vide which the petitioner was drawing consequential benefit being contrary to law could not come in the way of the execution of the decree by the petitioner. CR No.345 of 2007 8 This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived. It is also well settled law that the order which have attained finality cannot be set aside by change of law subsequently. The proposition, in any case, does not arise in the present case as the decree passed in favour of the petitioner which was sought to be executed did not grant him any consequential benefits. Order passed by the authorities in pursuance to the direction issued by the court could be challenged by the petitioner in appropriate forum which the petitioner, in fact, did but could not succeed. Learned Executing Court, therefore, was fully justified in dismissing the execution application and accepting the objections filed by the judgment debtors. No ground for interference is made by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 30.10.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge