State of U.P. and Another vs Rameshwar Dass Gupta and Others

R.B. Mehrotra, J.—Parmeshwar Das Gupta filed a Claim Petition No.638/F/III/ 79 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The aforesaid claim petition was partly allowed. The ultimate order passed by the Tribunal is quoted as below:

The petition is partly allowed. Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are directed to consider the confirmation of the petitioner on Group I post and consequent promotion to Class II and Class I posts from the date on which his junior Sri Ram Niwas was promoted with all consequential benefits of seniority, salary, pension etc., arising out therefrom.

Parties will bear their own costs.

In execution of the aforesaid order, the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, vide his order, dated 12.12.1995 directed that claim be paid in accordance with the terms of the decree, salary, gratuity and pension amounting to Rs. 1,97,575.32 and also directed payment of interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 1,46,205/- OOP

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. and Another, who were arrayed as opposite parties in the claim petition.

Heard Mr. B.D. Mandhyan for the revisionists and Mr. Ravi Kant for the decree holder opposite party. It is settled proposition of law that the Executing Court can neither enlarge the scope of the decree nor can go behind the decree for any purpose. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that since in the original order, there was no direction for the payment of the interest, the Executing Court committed an error of jurisdiction in directing that besides that amount required to be paid to the claimant, and additional amount to be paid to the claimant towards interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum. The contention is that to the extent the impugned order directs payment of interest, the said order is without jurisdiction.

There is no debate on the issue that the original order passed in the claim petition did not give any direction for payment of interest in case there is a delay in payment of the salary, pension gratuity etc. as directed in the impugned order. However, in the present case, the contention of the revisionists is that the amount required to be paid in pursuance of the direction of the UP. Public Services Tribunal has already been paid and there was no occasion for directing payment of interest

Without entering into the merits of this controversy, I am clearly of the opinion that the order impugned in the present revision to the extent it directs payment of interest besides other dues is without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the decree passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order in so far as it has directed that an amount of Rs. 1,46,205 be recovered from the opposite parties revisionists towards interest for non-payment of salary, gratuity and pension. The revision is Accordingly allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.

However, there are claims and counter claims regarding the exact amount deposited by the revisionists in the Executing Court. No comments need be made in this revision. It is being made clear that if the revisionists have (sic) excess amount towards execution of main decree, the said amount may be returned to he revisionists and in case there is any shortage in the amount for which the main decree stands, the said amount will be recovered from the revisionists. This issue can be adjudicated by the Executing Court itself.