2007 Supreme(SC) 174

2007(2) Supreme 564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Darshan Singh—Appellant
versus
State of Punjab—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 745 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20477 of 2005)
Decided on 13-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Satinder S. Gulati, Ms. Kamaldeep Narang and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katyal, T.P. Mishra, M.K. Verma and Arun K. Sinha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can not vary terms of decree in execution.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 115—High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can not vary terms of decree in execution—Appellant employed as clerk with respondent was put under suspension on 24-5-1965 on account of accusation of embezzlement and misappropriation of Govt. funds—Criminal case was initiated but appellant was acquitted in that case on 9-8-1973—No departmental action was taken and merely he was kept under suspension—Appellant was reinstated on 12-4-1978 and period of suspension was treated on duty for all intents and purposes and he retired on superannuation on 28-2-1989—Appellant filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 14-5-1990 seeking full pay and allowances for period 25-5-1965 to 28-4-1978 and entitlement to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1-9-1981—Suit was decreed and became final and decree awarded an amount of Rs. 60,586 with interest at 12% p.a. from date the amount became due till payment—Execution—Court dismissed objections against execution holding that appellant was entitled to interest at 12% p.a. with yearly rest—High Court in revision held that appellant was entitled to interest on the amount Rs. 60,586 from 9-12-1992 i.e. date of decree—Appeal—As per decree passed by trial Court and which became final, appellant was entitled to interest on due amount from 25-5-1965 until realization—High Court committed error in granting interest from 9-12-1992—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : In our opinion, the order of the High Court is absolutely incorrect. In the instant case, the Respondent/State has taken the stand in their counter-affidavit before this Court totally contrary to the stand taken before the High Court and the courts below. The Trial Court passed the decree dated 9.12.1992 in favour of the Appellant holding him entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became due and payable till realization. The decree simply meant that the Appellant is entitled for dues and the allowances for the period 25.5.1965 to 28.4.1978, thus Appellant became entitled for the interest on due amounts from 25.5.1965 until the date of realization.(Para 18)

       In the instant case, the Respondent/State has already held the Appellant entitled to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1981 and his pay was raised from Rs.850/- to Rs.880/- per month vide their office order No. 100 dated 24.3.1985. The Respondent/State even granted one additional increment w.e.f. 1.1.1986 raising his pay from Rs.2100/- to Rs.2150/- per month vide their office order No. 103 dated 30.3.1995. The Appellant has been paid the due amounts by the Respondent/State according to their aforementioned office orders. Now, before this Court for the first time the State has taken the stand in paragraphs (vii) and (viii) that the order of the High Court for considering the case of the Appellant for crossing the stage of efficiency bar is justified. This is the case where the decree passed by the Trial Court and further leave granted by the First Appellate Court in favour of the Appellant were approved by all the Courts up-till this Court. This Court vide order dated 3.2.1995 dismissed the Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1527-1528 of 1995 filed against the judgment dated 12.9.1994 in RSA Nos. 1915-1916 of 1994 and thus the decree passed in favour of the Appellant attained finality. In such a case, the stand taken by the State in their counter-affidavit is really unfortunate. We have already noticed that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot vary the terms of the decree in execution in view of the ruling by this Court in 1970 (1) SCC 670 and 1999 (1) SCC 558 and 2000(1) SCC 459. In our opinion, the High Court has committed an apparent error in granting interest from 9.12.1992 though the interest is liable to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. Thus, we hold that the Appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.60,586.75 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount became due and payable, namely, from 25.6.1965.(Para 19)