IMPORTANT POINT
The executing court has the authority to interpret decrees but cannot exceed the scope of the decree itself; the interpretation must align with the relief sought and granted.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot in Execution Petition No.206 of 2015 titled ‘Dharam Raj Garg Vs. State of Punjab and others’ directing the JD-petitioner to comply with the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) regarding payment of interest on benefits of increment, promotion and commuted pension of respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to interest on the delayed amount of retiral benefits paid by the petitioner from the date of its entitlement till the date of payment with interest @ 12% per annum. The said suit was decreed and appeal preferred against judgment dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2). The respondent No.1 thereafter filed an Execution Petition No.206 of 2015 before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.3,61,750/- to respondent No.1 and has fully complied with the decree dated 15.07.2015 affirmed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that calculation provided by respondent No.1, claiming Rs.42,49,546/-, is altogether wrong and learned Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the petitioner to pay interest on benefits such as increment, promotion and commuted pension, which were not granted by the Court in its judgment dated 15.07.2015. The learned counsel stated that learned trial Court in its judgment dated 15.07.2015 has clearly recorded two different reliefs; i) relief of grant of interest on delayed retiral benefits, and ii) grant of relief of increment, promotion and commuted pension with no interest on the said benefits. In support of his plea, learned counsel referred to the reliefs granted by the learned trial Court in judgment dated 15.07.2015.

5. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the observations made by Hon’ble the Apex Court in case titled Meenakshi Saxena and another v. ECGC Ltd. and another, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 4 and Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram and Others AIR 1960 SC 388, stated that it is settled position of law that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Reiterating his submissions, learned counsel stated that Executing Court wrongly interpreted the judgment of learned trial Court and made a prayer to set aside the impugned orders.

6. Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that orders under challenge are valid and justified. Learned Executing Court has rightly interpreted the judgments of learned trial Court dated 15.07.2015, affirmed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2018. The learned counsel stated that both the Courts below, granted interest on all the reliefs given to the respondent No.1 and Director Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh, Smt. Adarsh Pal Kaur in para No.3 of her affidavit dated 24.05.2023 has admitted that interest @ 9% per annum has been calculated on each delayed payment, and further admitted that Rs.34,96,359/- calculated by concerned quarter has not been paid to respondent No.1. The learned counsel contended that this admission leaves no shred of doubt that respondent No.1 is entitled for the interest on all the reliefs and department is purposely not releasing the due amount to the respondent no.1 and is harassing him.

7. By referring to judgment and decree dated 15.07.2015, learned counsel urged that learned trial Court has clearly granted interest @ 9% per annum from the due date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum till actual realization. The interest has been granted on all the benefits ruled in favour of respondent No.1. Learned Executing Court has not breached its jurisdiction while giving the directions to the p