IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2236-2026(O&M)

Date of decision: 10.03.2026 Richhpal Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff/decree holder against the order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P6) passed by learned Executing Court whereby Execution Petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of being unexecutable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.03.2008 the petitioner had filed suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants. Vide judgment dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P1), the suit of the petitioner had been decreed. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendants was partly allowed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P2). RSA-5198-2012 filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P3). Subsequently, the petitioner had filed the present Execution Petition in which judgment debtor No.3 had filed objections dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P7) on behalf of all the judgment debtors. The petitioner had duly filed rejoinder dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P8) to the objections dated 09.07.2025. Vide impugned order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P6), the Execution Petition has been disposed of.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is admitted, fact on record that the petitioner had worked as Labourer Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer from 22.01.2007 till he retired. It is also not disputed that the post of Labourer Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer is a promotional post and at that time it was vacant. Accordingly, the suit of the petitioner had been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge in unequivocal terms directing that petitioner is entitled to get his pay fixed in the pay scale of the Labourer-cum-Conciliation Officer. It is submitted that in this situation, the learned Executing Court could not refuse to execute the decree in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that it is incumbent upon the Executing Court to execute the decree as passed. The order passed by the learned Executing Court is based on conjectures and surmises and is against facts and law. However, in the present case, the passing of the impugned order reflects grave violation of the said mandate of law. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. (cid:1)

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

5. The Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P2) had partly allowed the Civil Appeal of the defendants and modified the decree passed by the trial court, as follows: –

“29. Hence, in view of above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted The plaintiff is held entitled to get his pay fixed in the pay scale of Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer w.e.f 22.01.2007 to 31.08.2007 but he is not entitled to revision of pension on the pay scale of Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer but is only entitled to affixation of pension as per the pay scale of Labour Inspector Decree be drawn accordingly. After due compliance. file be consigned to record room. Trial Court record alongwith copy of judgment be sent.”

6. As noted above, against the abovesaid judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 of the First Appellate Court, the petitioner had preferred RSA-5198-2012. The said RSA was dismissed by this Court in the following terms: -

“Perusal of the posting order, it is crystal clear that stop-gap arrangement against the direct quota post has been made. Appellant was never promoted to the post of Labour Officer-cum-

Conciliation Officer. Unless and until, appellant enters the cadre of Lab