Important Point
A declaratory decree cannot be executed as it only declares the rights of the decree-holder qua the judgment-debtor and does not in terms, direct the judgment debtor to do or to refrain from doing any particular act except in case of a Government servant who acquires a status.

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-State of Madhya Pradesh has come in appeal against the judgment dated April 29, 1988 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing its writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition had been filed challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Neemuch executing a declara­tory decree and that of the Additional District Judge, Mandsore up­holding in revision the order of the Civil Judge. This Court while granting special leave petition had stayed the operation of the impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the Executing Court.

2. The respondent was employed as a Clerk Grade I in the Irrigation Department of the appellant and was posted at Gandhi Sagar. He was transferred to Jabalpur. He handed over his charge at Gandhi Sagar. Respondent represented that due to acute illness of his father he might be transferred to Mandsore, a place near his home town to enable his to look after his father. His request was not acceded to. This led the respondent to submit his resignation. He was not informed if the resignation had been accepted. There was some correspondence in late sixties but there was no clear reply from the appellant if resignation of the respondent had been accepted. All this period the respondent did not join his duty and remained present at his home town. This led the appellant to assume that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from his service as he continuously remained absent from his place of taking over the charge of his post of more than five years. Thus, according to the appellant the services of the respondent stood termi­nated. The respondent sometime in 1979 filed a suit for declaration against the appellant that he continued to be in service which was decreed on October 1, 1982 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Neemuch. The decree passed in favour of the respondent is as under :

“It is ordered and decreed that - (a) Plaintiff’s suit is decreed with costs and this is declared that plaintiff is still in continuance service of defendant and his services are not terminated. Defendant will also bear the cost of the suit of the plaintiff along with its own cost and that the sum of Rs. 63.50 be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of costs of this suit with ­interest thereon at the rate of (illegible) percent per annum from this date to date of realization.

Given under my hand and the seal of Court this 1st day of October 1982.

                         Sd/-

A.H. Sheikh Patel

Civil Judge-Class II

Neemuch - (M.P.)”

3. Against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge the appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mandsore which was dis­missed and the second appeal in the High Court was also dismissed by the judgment dated April 26, 1986. The respondent, decree-holder, then filed an execution application in the court of the Civil Judge, Neemuch. This was to the effect that the respondent be awarded all the consequential benefits, salary, dearness allowances, promotion etc. of the service and also cost of the application. The appellant opposed the applica­tion on the grounds that the court did not pass any decree of rein­statement of the decree holder on the post or for payment of any salary to him and that in the suit the decree holder had not prayed for reinstatement and for arrears of his salary. It was also submitted before the executing Court by the appellant that since the decree holder had remained absent from his duty, he was not entitled to any salary on the basis of the principle of “no work no salary”. The objections filed by the appellant, it would appear, were dismissed by the executing Court. A revision against that order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Neemuch by order dated January 11, 1988. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which, as noted above, was dismissed. This led the appellant to come to this Court.

4. It appears to us