Smt. Tejinder Kaur vs Haryana State Through Collector on 4 February, 2009

Civil Revision No.5725 of 2007 (O&M)                                  -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                  Civil Revision No.5725 of 2007 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision:04.02.2009

Smt. Tejinder Kaur                                      .............. Petitioner

                                      Vs.


Haryana State through Collector, Karnal & others        .............Respondents


Present:   Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
           for the petitioner.

           None for the respondent.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment ?
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
                  -.-
K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The decree-holder who obtained a direction in the judgment that

he was entitled to gratuity and leave encashment salary after the conclusion

of enquiry pending against him within six months, moved the Executing

Court for recovery of the alleged leave encashment salary and for gratuity.

He quantified the amounts, although not specifically so drawn in the decree

or judgment by working out the original basic pay as Rs.10,750/-. The

Executing Court found the plaintiff’s entitlement to be justified but not at the

rate which he had claimed. The Court determined an amount of Rs.56,335/-

as leave encashment of the decree-holder at the refixed basic pay of

Rs.9250/- per month, as made by the Judgment-Debtor. There was no

direction by the Executing Court, apart from interest about the amount

claimed by way of gratuity in the execution petition.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, having recovered

Rs.56,355/- by virtue of the order is dissatisfied about its acceptance of the
Civil Revision No.5725 of 2007 (O&M) -2-

amount of Rs.9250/- as calculated by the Judgment-debtor as basic pay.

The contention of the learned counsel is that the Judgment-debtor has

reduced the amount even without notice and therefore, not valid.

3. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Neither the

judgment nor the decree makes any reference about the particular basic pay

that shall be applied while calculating the encashment of leave. If there had

been any reduction of the basic pay, which was not justified, it would be an

independent cause of action and cannot be adjudicated by the Executing

Court.

4. The decree-holder also complains that leave encashment has been

provided only for 134 days and the entitlement to a further 126 days has not

been provided. This is again a matter which the petitioner could adjudicate

only before the Executing Court by an appropriate execution petition and he

could have no remedy before this Court. The only relief which the revision

petitioner could still have is the non-consideration of the claim for gratuity

for which there is a definite provision in the decree and judgment. Granting

the liberty to the decree-holder to approach the Court below for execution

for any unpaid amounts towards gratuity, civil revision petition is disposed

of.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
February 04, 2009
Pankaj*