Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through Conservator Of ... vs Ved Parkash Verma S/O Amar Singh on 21 August, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.R. No.2546 of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.2546 of 2006
Date of Decision.21.08.2013
State of Haryana through Conservator of Forests, West Circle, Hisar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Ved Parkash Verma s/o Amar Singh .......Respondent
Present: Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for the respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The revision is at the instance of the State, who raised an objection at the stage of execution that the decree holder did not have a decree for monetary benefits but he was putting it in execution for recovery of such benefit which was not secured under the decree. The basis of the contention was that the Executing Court itself cannot traverse beyond the terms of the decree and when the decree resulted only in providing for a promotion to the plaintiff, the Trial Court decree specifically denied the monetary benefits and promotion as Deputy Ranger, the execution cannot be levied for the same. The Executing Court however took a leaf as it were from an observation that the Appellate Court, while dismissing an appeal filed by the State against the original decree that monetary benefits were also to be given, found Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.08.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.2546 of 2006 -2- that although the decree prepared by the Appellate Court did not make any provision for grant of monetary benefits and promotion as Deputy Ranger since there was a reference in the judgment about the monetary benefit and entitlement to further promotion to a higher post, they should be taken as having been granted to him. It is against this order that the revision has been filed.
2. There is no difficulty about understanding the proposition that the Executing Court will not traverse beyond the decree and the decree must be seen in the context of what the judgment states. Therefore, there is a need to see what the decree was and whether the essential consideration in the judgment provided for a relief of monetary benefit as well. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff for declaratory relief that he was entitled to have a seniority fixed above what was found in the gradation list and for a promotion as a Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 01.01.1982. The judgment in paragraph 23 as follows:-
"In view of my above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed to the effect that he is entitled to have a seniority fixed at S. No.47, in the gradation list of Forester, issued on 01.01.1986 with no order as to costs. However, his plea regarding arrears and promotion as Deputy Ranger is declined..."
3. The First Court judgment, therefore, leaves us with no doubt that the Court was specifically taking up a plea which the plaintiff had made with regard to arrears and promotion as Deputy Ranger. This was also reflected in the decree which was passed. When the appeal was filed by the defendant, it must be noticed that there had been no cross appeal or objection by the plaintiff against the denial of relief of promotion as Deputy Ranger and the monetary benefits. The Appellate Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.08.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.2546 of 2006 -3- Court has considered among other portions the following in paragraph 9:-
".....Since the annual reports were not conveyed to the respondent, the respondent, therefore, cannot be ignored from his promotion as Forester and thereafter as Deputy Ranger on the basis of the adverse ACRs. The respondent has a right to be considered for his promotion towards the above two posts i.e. on 11.09.1978 for the post of Forester and to the post of Deputy Ranger on the date when the official juniors to the respondents are promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger. The respondent will consequently be entitled to all the arrears of his promotion to the above said posts."
4. Now it can be noticed that the Court was actually holding that if the annual adverse reports were conveyed to the plaintiff- respondent, he could not be ignored from his promotion as Forester and thereafter as Deputy Ranger on the basis of adverse ACRs. The reference, therefore, in that judgment is that it was not merely a promotion to the post as Forester but even a promotion to Deputy Ranger could not have been denied. The Court has further observed that the plaintiff shall, therefore, be considered for promotion towards the above two posts which posts would include not merely the post of a Forester but ought to include the post of a Deputy Ranger as well. The reference to entitlement to two posts would not have been possible unless the lower Court decree denying him the promotion as Deputy Ranger was modified. When the Court was, therefore, allowing for entitlement to all the arrears due on his promotion to the above posts, it was considering his entitlement not merely to the post of Forester but also to the post as Deputy Ranger. The Appellate Court was indeed providing for relief even without a cross appeal or cross objection. If the decree which was drafted subsequently was merely stating that the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.08.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.2546 of 2006 -4- appeal was dismissed and it had not made any reference to its finding that the plaintiff is entitled also to the promotion as Deputy Ranger or the monetary benefits, it must only be taken that the Appellate Court decree had not been drafted in terms of what it found in paragraph 9.
5. It is on record that the State had preferred an appeal to this Court and on a summary dismissal without notice to the respondent, it had also tried its luck before the Supreme Court and in both the forums, the Government had lost. The Government has not chosen to file grounds of appeal either before this Court or the Supreme Court whether it had challenged the justification for Appellate Court to provide for the promotion to the Deputy Ranger and to the monetary benefits. If the Government's contention were to be accepted, it ought to have been a ground even in the second appeal filed before this Court as well as the SLP to the Supreme Court. The non-filing of the necessary documents namely the grounds of appeal before this Court or the Supreme Court, I would understand, if it is filed so, they were adverse to the Government and therefore, it was not being filed. I had also sought to send for the records of the High Court in that case but they are reported to have been burnt in a fire accident.
6. In my view, the Government itself understood the judgment of the Appellate Court as giving him a new relief and that was how after the judgment was passed, the plaintiff had been promoted not merely to the next immediate higher post of Forester but also to the further promoted post as Deputy Ranger. If the Government stand was tenable, consistent with the contentions raised in defence in the execution petition, even further promotion as Deputy Ranger ought to have been Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.08.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.R. No.2546 of 2006 -5- denied. After all the promotion to Deputy Ranger post was denied by the trial Court and there could not have been a compulsion for the Government to promote him to such a post if he was not entitled. The fact that such promotion had been granted again was a vindication of the plaintiff's claim that the Appellate Court decree was understood by the State as making possible a promotion to Deputy Ranger post as well.
7. The execution levied by the plaintiff seeking for the monetary benefits granted to him was, therefore, perfectly justified and it was under peculiar circumstances that the decree had not been properly drafted and the Executing Court was fully competent to read through the judgment to find what the decree was and provided what the judgment had actually provided for. I find no reason for interfering with the order passed by the Executing Court.
8. The civil revision filed by the State is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 21, 2013 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.08.26 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh