Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. This case was placed for heaving before S.B. Sinha, J, After taking a stock of the facts and the contentions of the parties, however, he ordered on 8.4.1988 as follows:

In view of the peculiar circumstances arising in this case and in view of the aforementioned order dated 22.1.1987 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, I am of the view that this case should be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench.

9. The case has accordingly been listed before us for hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that (1) having case restored the position of the petitioner in the combined gradation list the respondents have no option but to place the petitioner below Dr. Chatterjee and above his next junior in the service by retrospectively granting him Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Super Time Scale of Pay from the due date and (ii) the respondents cannot take shelter of any technicality to avoid the implementation of the Civil Court decree which has been affirmed even by the Supreme Court. The learned Counsel has submitted that the respondents have denied the petitioner his due emoluments including the salary and due promotion in the service during his service tenure and even after superannuation not extended to him the retirement benefits calculated on the basis of the petitioner's due position in the service by granting him at each stage promotion or scale of pay as a consequence of restoration of his position in the combined gradation list. He ha* also submitted chat in totality the respondents have act 1 with malice in law as also malice in fact and even made themselves liable for violating the decree of a Court of law, affirmed by the highest court of law.

10. The learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the contentions noted by S.B. Sinha, J, in this order of reference that (i) this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot execute a decree passed by a Civil Court and, (ii) in view of the fact that under Rule 58 of the

11. Before noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, I propose to deal with the contention raised on behalf of the respondent. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh Mann v. The State of Punjab 1971 Labour and Industrial Cases 1231 considered a case of a priory who was initially governed by the Peru Civil Secretariat Service Recruitment, Promotion, Punishment and Seniority Rules, 1952 and thereafter by the Punjab integration Rules. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ambala which was decreed and it was declared that trio order reverting him was illegal, void, unconstitutional inoperative and that the plaintiff still continued to be in the service of the State of Punjab as an Assistant and was entitled to all the emoluments, pay allowances, increments and all other rights and privileges attached to the said post from the date of his revision. The State of Punjab filed an appeal against that decree, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, The State of Punjab filed a f further: appeal in the High Court which was also dismissed. The State Government thereafter filed an application for permission to file a Letter Patent Appeal which was also dismissed. Still the State of Punjab did not implement the decree but re-promoted him as an Assistant and treated him as a clerk from February 3, 1960 to September, 1967 The petitioner for the reason that the benefit of the decree was not granted to him filed a writ application to issue a mandamus to grant necessary reliefs to the petitioner. The High Court declined to issue any mandamus stating in the order:

The reason stated by the respondent in the return for not implementing the declaratory decree passed in favour of the petitioner is that the matter is still pending decision before the Supreme Court, which means that the Government will take decision in the case of the petitioner and other officials like him after the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court and 1 have no reason to doubt that the Government will itself allow the necessary reliefs to the petitioner after the matter is finally decided by their Lordship of the Supreme Court. I am of the opinion that the remedy provided by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to for getting a declaratory decree passed by a Civil Court implemented; I hold that this petition is not maintainable and dismiss the same as incompetent.

Notwithstanding the view which are noticed above in the judgment of the Punjab High Court itself, I may say that it is not the case of the respondent before this Court that they have not implemented the decree. Their case is that they have not implemented it in full. A question has arisen before us whether after showing the seniority of the petitioner pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court respondents have any justification to deny to the petitioner his due promotion or not etc. a question which can be gone into irrespective of the fact whether the decree conveyed to the petitioner not only restoration of seniority but also consequential benefits or not. In S. Krishnamurthy v. The General Manager Southern Railway 1977 Labour Industrial Cases 1191, the Supreme Court has considered the case of a railway employee who was a clerk since October 1948 and was confirmed as trains clerk on April 1, 1949. He worked his way up and became a wagon chaser in an ex-cadre post. He was entitled to become Assistant Yard Master but was continued as wagon chaser. Had he become Assistant Yard Master in due time, a chain of promotion would have become available to him. He was not considered while others were given such promotion until, the Railway Administration discovered the injustice and issued an order on 10th November, 1965 to absorb him as Assistant Yard Master. While this was detected and some rectification done, others had been absorbed as traffic Inspector. The petitioner moved the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the Court allowed his application but a Division Bench upset the said decision. The Supreme Court recorded that the judgment of the single Judge was correct and held: