##PAGE1##

1

CGHC010063912024 2026:CGHC:37860

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 163 of 2024 Central Industrial Security Force Commandant KSTPP Korba, PO Vikash Bhawan,

Jamnipali, Korba, Taluka-Korba, District-Korba (CG)

... Petitioner versus

Ram Karan Sharma S/o Lt. Dularam Sharma, Aged About 70 Years Village-Mair Tola Bhamraha, P.S. Beohari, Shahdol (M.P.)

... Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI and Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

24.08.2026

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned execution proceeding (Annexure-P/1) held by Executing Court in EXE/113/1991

arising out of case No.113A/91.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:

2026.08.25 18:42:08 +0530

2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff was posted as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and he was terminated from the service vide Order dated 02.03.1983. Against the said order of termination, he preferred an appeal, which was also rejected. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 113-A/1991, which was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 13.09.1993 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Korba, the then Distt. Bilaspur (MP). The said judgment was subsequently set aside by the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 24.11.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No. 365/1996 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-P/3). While partly allowing the second appeal, this Court reduced the punishment and directed that the appellant/plaintiff/respondent be punished in the same manner as Ramraj, i.e., by placing him at the lowest stage in the time scale of pay with immediate effect, with cumulative effect, (minimum scale of Rs. 2,000/-). Except for the aforesaid relief, no other relief, including the relief of back wages, was granted to the respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, vide order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure- P/5), the pay of the respondent/plaintiff was reduced to the lowest stage of Rs. 210/- in the time scale of pay for a period of three years, with cumulative effect. Thereafter, his pay was refixed with effect from 01.01.1986 and was subsequently revised from time to time on account of changes in the applicable pay scales, until his retirement on 31.01.2013. His last pay was fixed on 01.07.2012 in the pay scale of Rs. 12,040 +4200/-. Learned counsel further submits that after retirement of the respondent/plaintiff, all his retiral dues have been paid to him except back wages, which were not granted by this Court vide Judgment dated 02.04.2013 passed in SA

3

No.365/1996. Despite the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed an execution application for payment of back wages, and the learned Executing Court, vide impugned order dated 12.01.2024, directed payment thereof. Learned counsel further submits that it is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Since no relief towards back wages was granted by this Court in the judgment passed in the second appeal, the learned Executing Court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief in execution proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside/quashed. Hence, it is prayed that

the impugned order be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that, in the second appeal before this Court, t