Civil Revision No.7722 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7722 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2010 Mrs. Anju Bala and others ....Petitioners Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Civil suit No.521 of 2007 filed by the petitioners was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2009. Decree dated 21.4.2009 reads as under: - “23. As a sequel to my above findings the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and mandatory injunction succeeds and is decreed with costs to the effect that plaintiffs are entitled for pensionary benefits including gratuity, GPF, Leave encashment etc. and are also entitled for employment on compassionate ground or to Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in lieu thereof as per rules. The defendants are directed to release the pensionary benefits of Sanjay Kumar as above and also to take decision regarding providing of employment on compassionate grounds or to give Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in lieu thereof to the plaintiffs as per rules. The plaintiffs are awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the time of their becoming entitled to pensionary benefit of deceased Sanjay Kumar till its realization. Decree sheet be prepared Civil Revision No.7722 of 2010 (O&M) -2- accordingly. File be consigned to records after due compliance.” Decree-holders/petitioners thereafter moved an application for execution of the decree before the learned Executing Court, in which Executing Court vide impugned order has directed as under: - “In the absence of any record this court does not finds force in such a contention of learned counsel for the judgment debtor. Certainly, if they do not intended to give employment on compassionate ground to the plaintiff-decree holder, then they are to give a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu thereof. Further, the plaintiffs are certainly entitled for the pensionary benefits along with interest @6% per annum from the date of its becoming due till the date of its realization. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor did not object the pensionary benefits on any ground but the objection was taken in regard to the giving of the employment on compassionate ground. The objection of the learned counsel for the judgment debtor is accepted to the extent that if they do not intend to give employment on compassionate ground, then they are hereby directed to give Rs.5,00,000/- in lump sum in lieu thereof as per rules.” Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since vacancies still exist, hence judgment-debtor/State is bound to give employment and only when no vacancy is available, judgment-debtors can say that instead of giving employment they are paying Rs.5,00,000/- as directed by the learned trial Court. From the perusal of the decree, it is revealed that learned trial Court has decreed the suit for all pensionary benefits, including the directing to the defendants either to give employment or to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu thereof. Learned trial Court has not issued any direction of the effect that Rs.5,00,000/- can be paid only when there is Civil Revision No.7722 of 2010 (O&M) -3- no vacancy. Trial Court has not directed that if vacancy is available, employment is to be given. Trial Court has left choice with the defendants. This is the settled principle of law that Executing Court cannot go behind decree. Since trial Court has given choice to the defendants either to give employment or to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, in the opinion of this Court defendants were well within jurisdiction by offering Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of employment. I do not find any illegality or mistake in the impugned order. However, it is made clear, if Rs.5,00,000/- as directed in the decree, are not paid within a month from today, decree-holders shall be entitled to execute this part of the decree. (Alok Singh) Judge November 26, 2010 R.S.