IMPORTANT POINT
A judgment must be read as a whole.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of a judgment of Civil Judge, Faridabad in Civil Suit No. 180 of 1999 dated 17-11-2000 is in question in these appeals.

3. Respondents are employees of the appellant-Board, a successor of Haryana State Electricity Board constituted and incorporated under Section 5 and 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Respondents were employees of a Thermal Power Plant at Faridabad. Indisputably the appellant has another Thermal Power Plant at Panipat. Inter alia on the premise that the employees similarly situated and working at Panipat, Thermal Power Plant were receiving a higher salary, the aforementioned suit was filed praying inter alia for the following reliefs :

“(a) a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to receive the said higher pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. 24.10.1991, and of Rs.5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of due till actual payment, as given to their co-employees as mentioned in para No. 2 above of the plaint, on the basis of principle of ‘equal pay for equal work,;

(b) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants to release/pay to the plaintiffs the said higher pay scales of Rs. 1400-2600/- w.e.f. 24.10.1991 and of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.96 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of due till actual payment, forthwith;”

4. The issues which were framed in the aforementioned suit in terms of the pleadings of the parties were as under :

“(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the pay scales of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 24.10.1991 and of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% from the defendants?

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?”

The learned Trial Judge while determining the said issue Nos. 1 and 2, relying or on the basis of a Judgment and decree passed in the case of Anil Kapoor Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board1 being RSA No. 800 of 1992 which was then pending in second appeal before the High Court of Haryana held as under :

“The plaintiffs are entitled to get the benefit as ordered by the Hon’ble High Court and which would be subject to the decision of RSA No.800/1992. The plaintiffs have proved the legal notice served by them through counsel which is placed on record as Ex. P1, as admitted by DW1 in his cross examination, but no reply was given by the defendants.”

It was directed :

“For the reasons recorded above, issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 24.10.1991 and Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 subject to decision of RSA No.800/1992.”

On the aforementioned findings, the following relief was granted :

“In sequel of my aforesaid discussion on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and mandatory injunction succeeds and the same is hereby decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 24.10.1991 and Rs.5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. However, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest as claimed. Keeping in view of circumstances of the case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.”

5. Indisputably the said decree has attained finality as the same has been upheld upto this court.

6. An execution petition was filed.

Appellants herein filed an objection to the said execution petition raising a contention that a mere declaratory relief having been passed in the favour of the decree holder, they were not entitled to the arrears of pay, stating :

“In view of the judgment dated 9.10.2001 of Hon’ble High Court in RSA-800/92, the present D.Hs are not entitled for any relief and in case t