-
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANR.
v.
LADULAL MALI
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.)
Service law :
A
B
Temiination of service-Confimied by appellate auth01ity-Suit for C
declaration that the order was illegal-Suit decreed-Execution Petition filed
for reinstatement dismissed since the suit filed was only for a declaration-On
revision High Court directing payment of back-wageS-On appeal held, decree
contained only a declaratory relief without consequential payment of
monetary benefits-Hence Executing Court was right in refusing to grant the
~
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3614 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.1994 of the Rajasth!ffi E
High Court in S.B. C.R.P. No. 604 of 1993.
Sushil K. Jain and Vipin Gogia for the Appellants.
P. Gaur for the Respondent.
The folloWing Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by
special leave arises from the order dated March 18, 1994 made by the
learned single Judge in Revision Petition No. 604 of 1993. The appellants G
had terminated the service of the respondent on December 7, 1983. On
appeal, it was confirmed. When a suit was filed, the District Munsif by
decree dated November 12, 1990, declared that the order of termination
as well as the order of the appellate authority were illegal, void and against
the principle of natural justice. The respondent had filed Execution peti- H
143
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 2 S.C.R.
A
t~on No. 2'.91 ~or reinstatement. The executin~ Court dis~issed the E~ec~-1
lion Apphcatton on December 4, 1992 holdmg that suit of the plamhff
against the respqndent is for declaration. Therefore, he is not entitled to
the back-wages. On a revision filed, the High Court relying upon the
decision of the High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport C01pn. &
B
Ors. v. Solian Lal, (S.B.C.R. No. 623/93) decided on 26th October, 1993
set aside the order of the executive Court and directed payment of the
back-wages. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is not in dispute that the decree does not contain payment of
back-wages. Only declaratory relief has been g~anted. Shri Gaur, the
C learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that when the
batch was disposed of by this Court on December 16,1994, this Court had
directed payment of 40% of the back-wages. The respondent is accordingly
entitled to the same relief. We find from the order of this Court that there
is no such indication. It would appear that in some cases, there was a
declaration to grant consequential monetary reliefs. In the batch when this
D Court had disposed of the matters obviously the relief of back-wages
related to those cases. Consequently, this Cour_t limited payment of back-
wages to the extent of 40%. It is settled law that executing Court cannot
go behind the decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only a
declaratory refo;f without any consequential payment of monetary benefits,
E the executing Court was right in refusing to grant the relief; The High
Court was, therefore, clearly in error in directing payment of back-wages.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No. costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
-
-
Lex