Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And ... vs Vijay Kumar on 13 September, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 2009 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 2009 of 2011
Date of Decision : September 13, 2012
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
Vijay Kumar .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Judgment Debtors (JDs) - Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) and its officers have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Executing Court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat.
Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff - Decree Holder (DH) was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 directing the C. R. No. 2009 of 2011 2 defendants/JDs to take decision (regarding regularization of service of DH) as per policy Ex.P-1 within 90 days from the date of decree, failing which the plaintiff would be deemed to be regularized after expiry of 90 days. Some other stipulations were also made in the decree. Since the JDs failed to comply with the decree, DH filed execution petition. In the said execution petition, JDs contended that vide memo no.373 dated 17.02.2009, DH has already been intimated that his claim for regularization has been rejected as there is no policy for regularization in vogue. However, this plea of the JDs has been rejected by the Executing Court vide impugned order and thereby, JDs were given one month's time to comply with the decree in letter and spirit. Feeling aggrieved, JDs have filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that vide memo no.373 dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P-4), DH was intimated regarding rejection of his claim for regularization of service because no policy for regularization was in vogue, and therefore, the decree has been duly complied with. The contention cannot be accepted. The decree directed the JDs to consider the case of the plaintiff in accordance with policy Ex.P-1. However, vide memo Ex.P-4 dated 17.02.2009, the JDs intimated that since no policy for regularization is in vogue, the plaintiff's claim was rejected. It would mean C. R. No. 2009 of 2011 3 that JDs have not considered the claim of DH in accordance with policy Ex.P-1. Had the JDs alleged that the case of DH for regularization of service did not fall within the four corners of policy Ex.P-1, the position might have been different. However, the JDs did not at all consider the claim of DH in accordance with policy Ex.P-1. Counsel for the JDs/petitioners stated that policy Ex.P-1 was withdrawn on 22.08.2007 i.e. before the passing of decree by the trial court. In spite thereof, the decree directed the JDs to consider the claim of DH in accordance with policy Ex.P-1, and therefore, the JDs were bound to do so. The JDs could not nullify the decree by saying that the policy already stood withdrawn. Moreover, the suit had been filed while the policy was still operative. Thus, the entire stand of the JDs is completely meritless and unacceptable.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the Executing Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
September 13, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE