A declaratory decree in service matters, quashing the order of termination of service and entitling the employee to all consequential benefits, is executable, and a direction for payment of salary and emoluments can be given by the court as a logical consequence of the declaration.

Headnote:
DECLARATORY DECREE - EXECUTION - SERVICE MATTERS - DECREE QUASHING TERMINATION ORDER - ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS - EXECUTABILITY OF DECREE - COURT FEES AND JURISDICTION - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:

Nine revision petitions were filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order of the Executing Court rejecting the Corporation's objection that the decrees being in declarative form, no execution can be made. In all the cases, civil suits were filed against the Corporation claiming a decree quashing the order of termination, removal, or dismissal from service and further allowing the plaintiff all benefits of salary, etc., which he would have got if the order of termination would not have been passed. The decrees in all cases quashed the order of termination of service of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and further that they are entitled to all consequential benefits in respect of the salary, etc.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the decrees in all nine cases are executable both for the purpose of reinstatement as well as for the purpose of payment of salary and other dues to which they were entitled. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab, where it was held that a direction for payment of salary and emoluments is a logical consequence of a declaration that the employee continues in service and is the only way in which such judgments can be implemented.
Issues: 1. Whether a decree which is merely declarative can be executed? 2. Whether a decree for declaration can be executed in service matters? 3. Whether the court can give a direction for payment of salary and emoluments in a declaratory decree? 4. Whether the executability of a decree is affected by the non-payment of court fees and the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A decree which is merely declarative cannot be executed unless it contains a direction for the performance of a specific act or the payment of money. 2. A decree for declaration can be executed in service matters where the declaration is that the order of termination of service is illegal and the employee is entitled to all consequential benefits. 3. The court can give a direction for payment of salary and emoluments in a declaratory decree as a logical consequence of the declaration that the employee continues in service. 4. The executability of a decree is not affected by the non-payment of court fees and the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, as these can be rectified by payment of the requisite fees and obtaining the necessary jurisdiction.
Final Decision: All the nine revision petitions were dismissed with costs and the stay orders were vacated.

JUDGMENT

1. - These nine revision petitions have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), against the order of the Executing Court, rejecting the objection of the Corporation that the decrees being in declarative form, no execution can be made.

2. It is common ground that in all these cases, civil suits were filed against the Corporation claiming that a decree may be passed quashing the order of termination, removal or dismissal from service, as the case may be, in each case and further the plaintiff may be allowed all benefits of salary etc., which he would have got if the order of termination would not have been passed.

3. In civil suits in all cases, a decree has been given quashing the order of termination of service of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and further that they are entitled to all consequential benefits in respect of the salary etc.

4. The operative portion of the judgment in Sita Ram's case reads as under :

"oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k fnukad 23-4-79 voS/k] izHkko'kwU; o fu;e fo:) gS] vr% mls fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA oknh lsok ds rRlca/kh leLr ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA oknh dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknh izfroknhx.k ls okn O;; Hkh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"
The order in Damodar Lal's case reads as under :

"nkok oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA fooknxzLr lsok izFkd vkns'k fnukad 1&9&81 voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrkA oknh dks os leLr ykHk izkIr gksxs tks mls izfroknh ds lsok esa jgrs gq, izkIr gksus okys FksA"
The order in Mahendra Kumar's case reads as under :

"oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fMdh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;s ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh dk lsokA i`FkDdx.k vkns'k la[;k 470 fnukad 16&9&80 voS/k] vf/kfu;e] fu;e fo:) ,oa izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gSA ;g ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh lsok ds rRlca/kh leLr ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd nksuksa i{kdkj viuk ckn O;; Lo;a cgu djsaxsA"
In Ram Prasad's case, it reads as under :

"oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) lO;; fMdh fd;k tkrk gS tc mls lsok ls i`Fkd djus okys vkns'k dzekad 295 fnukad 31&7&82 dks voS/k] fof/k fo:) ,oa izHkko'kwU; rFkk mls izfroknhx.k dks lsoka esa leLr rRlac/kh ykHkksa lfgr iwoZor cuk gqvk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA"
In Parma Nand's case, it reads as under :

"okn oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ dkuwuh fMdh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k fnukad 11&12&81 voS/k o xSj dkuwuh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS] ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh leLr ykHk lfgr lsok esa jgus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"
In Sarvan Lal's case, it reads as under :

"oknh dk okn lO;; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fuEu izdkj ls fMdzh fd;k tkrk gSA"

"1- oknh dks lsok ls i`Fkd djkus dk vkns'k fnukad 15&12&81 voS/k] fo:) izHkko 'kwU; gSA2- izfroknhx.k ds fo:) mDr vkns'k dks rnuqlkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkdj mUgs vkKkid LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk }kjk tc ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd og oknh dks fujUrj iwoZor lsok esa ekus vkSj mls feyus okys osru o vU; ykHkksa ls ugh jksdsA3- foHkkxh; vihy esa oknh ds fo:) izLrkfor vkns'k ikfjr ugh djs vkSj dj fn;k x;k gks rks mls fujLr le>sA"
In Ikwal Ahmed's case, it reads as under :

"okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ dkuwuh fMdh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k fnukad 27&2&80 xSj dkuwuh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh leLr ykHk lfgr lsok esa jgus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"
In Ram Chandra's case. it reads as under :

"okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k fMdh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA fd i`FkDdj.k dk vkns'k fnukad 17&1&80 voS/k gS rFkk oknh leLr ykHk lfgr lsok esa jgus dk vf/kdkjh gSA i{kkdkj viuk [kpkZ Lo;a ogu djsxsaA"
In Mohan Lal Khandelwal's case, it reads as under :

"okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ fMdh fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknh dk fooknkLin vkns'k fnukad 10&9&81 voS/k] izHkko'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls osru vkfn leLr ykHk izkIr gksaxs tks mls lsok esa jgrs gq, gksrsA"

5. When the execution petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1983 Supreme(Raj) 540

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHG.M.Lodha, J.R.S.R.T.C. - AppellantVersusMohan Lal Khandelwal - RespondentS. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 586 of 1983 and 8 other revision petitions.Decided On : 24-11-1983

A declaratory decree in service matters, quashing the order of termination of service and entitling the employee to all consequential benefits, is executable, and a direction for payment of salary and emoluments can be given by the court as a logical consequence of the declaration.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.M.Lodha, J.
R.S.R.T.C. - Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal Khandelwal - Respondent
S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 586 of 1983 and 8 other revision petitions.
Decided On : 24-11-1983