Dev Samaj Higher Secondary School vs Ram Parkash and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment debtor (JD) no. 1-Dev Samaj Higher Secondary School has filed this revision petition u/s 115 of the CPC (in short-CPC) impugning order dated 03.11.1993, passed by the Executing Court i.e. Additional Senior Sub Judge, Moga. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff/decree holder (DH) Ram Parkash filed suit seeking following relief:-

Suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is a teacher for Middle Class and he is teaching in the school as teacher for the last about 13 years and he is entitled to receive arrears as per Govt. Notification No. 2524 Ex. 11-77, 22 March 1977.

And

Issuance of a permanent injunction ordering the defendant to allow the plaintiff to teach in the class as he was doing previously and defendant be further restraining not to be move him from his usual duties of a teacher.

The trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.1984, decreed the suit to the following effect:-

I decree the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is continuous to be a teacher in the school or regular J.B.T. Scale from 18.04.1981 and he is entitled to all arrears and pay of regular J.B.T. teacher from 20.03.1977 till today. The prayer of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is declined as that is not maintainable under the law.

In execution petition, filed by DH, learned Executing Court, vide impugned order, has held the DH to be entitled to all arrears of salary along with interest @ 1% per month and has also directed the JDs to allow him to join as teacher to hold classes, besides payment of the due amount. Feeling aggrieved, JD no. 1 has filed this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that no interest was either claimed or granted in the suit, and therefore, the Executing Court could not have granted interest in execution proceedings. There is considerable merit in the contention. Even counsel for respondent no. 1-DH could not raise any meaningful argument to rebut the same. Admittedly, no interest was claimed in the suit nor it was awarded by the courts in the suit or in appeal. Consequently, the Executing Court could not have awarded interest on the arrears of salary payable to the DH. Impugned order of the Executing Court, therefore, suffers from perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that arrears of salary were granted by the trial court till the date of decree and not for the subsequent period, and therefore, DH is not entitled to arrears of salary for the subsequent period. This contention is, however, completely fallacious and devoid of substance. The DH was held to be continuing to be teacher in the school on regular basis. Consequently, after the passing of the decree, the DH was entitled to work in the school as teacher and to get salary for the same, whereas till date of decree, the arrears were granted by the trial court because during the interregnum, the DH had not worked as teacher, but was still entitled to arrears of salary having been wrongfully terminated.

Counsel for the DH also pointed out that both parties had preferred first appeals against judgment and decree of the trial court and while disposing of those appeals, the appellate court also held the DH to be entitled to all arrears of salary. Even otherwise, when the DH was held to be continuing as teacher in the JD school, the DH is entitled to all arrears of salary. Consequently, impugned order of the Executing Court in this regard does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order of the Executing Court is modified to the extent that respondent no. 1-DH is not entitled to interest on the arrears of salary. Rest of the claim of the DH allowed by the Executing Court is affirmed.