The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of promotion was not claimed or granted in the decree dated 17.11.2003, and the petitioner was not entitled to promotion as a matter of right, as per the applicable Regulations.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya J. - This revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Executing Court, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, by which execution application filed by the petitioner/decree-holder was dismissed as the decree dated 17.11.2003 stood fully satisfied.

2. The facts in brief are, the petitioner/decree-holder joined the respondent-Board as an Assistant Engineer. He was placed under suspension by order dated 12.08.1981 w.e.f. 13.05.1981 on account of willful absence from duty. A departmental enquiry was held and a show cause notice of proposed punishment was issued. However, instead of taking any decision on the show cause notice, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 04.05.1987 with immediate effect. Thereafter, a denovo enquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner vide order dated 28.08.1989; another charge sheet was served upon him by order dated 26.08.1988 alleging that he had willfully absented himself since 04.05.1987. After the enquiry, the petitioner was finally removed from service vide order dated 27.11.1992 w.e.f. 13.05.1981. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 27.11.1992 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Board was illegal and arbitrary. The claim raised in the plaint was as under:

A decree of declaration to the effect that the order dated 27.11.92 passed by the Chairman of the Board and conveyed by the Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula by which punishment of removal from service was awarded to the plaintiff with effect from 13.05.1981, is illegal arbitrary, against the rules of natural justice, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, malafide, with a biased & prejudiced mind and against the provisions contained in the relevant punishment and Appeal Rules applicable to him and the plaintiff be deemed in service on full pay and allowances from the passing of impugned order along with interest @ 18% per annum on the arrears of pay and allowances from the date of accrual to the date of actual payment.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 22.12.2001. He preferred an appeal against the same which was allowed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure P-1); the suit was decreed as under: It is ordered that the appeal accepted and the suit is decreed, without any order as to costs and order Ex-P20 dated 27.11.1992 is set aside. The plaintiff/appellant is held (entitled) to all consequential benefits i.e. all service benefits. However, he would not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of salary etc, which has become payable to him. The appeal is accordingly accepted.

4. The Regular Second Appeal bearing No.1465 of 2004 against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 of the lower Appellate Court was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2004. Resultantly, the decree attained finality.

5. The petitioner thereafter approached the Executing Court for execution of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 (P-1). The respondent filed objection petition by taking the plea that after consideration of the matter, the Competent Authority has decided, vide order dated 28.01.2005 (Annexure-P/3), to regularize the period from 13.05.1981 to 31.05.1998. While doing so, the period of petitioner's absence from 04.05.1987 to 31.05.1998 was ordered to be treated as leave of kind due. The objections were heard and dismissed by the Executing Court, vide order dated 14.11.2006, and the respondent/judgment debtor was further directed to make the entire payment to the petitioner/decree holder in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2003 within a period of one month. Against this order, the respondent/judgment-debtor filed Civil Revision petition bearing No.6912 of 2006, which was also dismissed by t