Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Labaya vs Municipal Corporation on 10 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)105PLR362
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, challenging his dismissal from service. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on the appeal taken by the petitioner to the Appellate Court, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. The first Appellate Court found that the resolution of the Municipal Corporation removing the petitioner was illegal on various grounds. The appeal taken by the Municipal Corporation before this Court in R.S.A. No. 321 of 1973 was also dismissed on 15.4.1982. Armed with a decree the petitioner filed an execution application before the Court of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, on 4.2.1984, but the same was declined vide order dated 7.4.1989 on the ground that as the suit and the decree was for declaration only without any prayer for consequential relief, the relief of reinstatement in service and payment of back-wages could not be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed.
2. The only point urged by Mr. Pawan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in the case of a declaratory suit all the consequential reliefs flowing from the order struck down as void must accrue to the decree-holder and he must be deemed to be in a position identical to that existing prior to the passing of the order of termination of his service. Reliance for this proposition has been laid on Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barnala, (1983) 85 P.L.R. 21.
3. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that in the execution-application filed by the decree-holder, the claim was only for reinstatement and there was no prayer for back-wages. He has also urged that the petitioner was not a Government employee covered by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and as such a contract of personal service could not be enforced against the respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that this revision petition must succeed. In Radha Ram's case (supra) the Full Bench of this Court was called upon to consider the effect of a declaratory decree obtained against the Municipal Committee and it was observed that in such a situation the employee continues to be in service and as a necessary consequence thereof would be entitled to all the emoluments flowing from that status. It was further held that in a suit for declaration, the civil Court sitting in appeal is competent to give any direction for the payment of the arrears of pay as a result of the dismissal order having been declared illegal or without jurisdiction. It will, thus, be seen that the observations, quoted above, virtually meet all the arguments raised by Mr. Mittal in support of this case. As already mentioned above, the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit was that the order of his dismissal was void and this prayer was accepted by the Appellate Court and confirmed by this Court on 15.4.1982. In that situation, the order of dismissal being held to be void, all the consequential benefits would flow to the petitioner in terms of the Full Bench decision.
5. The other argument of Mr. Mittal that in the execution-application the claim of the petitioner was only for reinstatement and not for back-wages is found to be incorrect from a reading of the application itself. There is a categorical assertion therein that the petitioner be reinstated and the arrears of salary etc. be recovered by sale and attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, the Municipal Corporation.
6. In the light of what has been held above, the present petition is allowed, the order of the executing Court dated 7.4.1989 is set aside and a direction is issued that all the consequential reliefs that flow from the decree be made available to the petitioner as soon as possible, but not later than six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 21.10.1993.