STATE OF M.P. versus MANGI LAL SHARMA

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 18-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
MANGI LAL SHARMA 
DECEMBER 18, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 196rSection 34, Proviso-Suit for declaration by 
the respondent that he continued to be in se1vice of the appellant-Declaratory 
decree-Execution of-Prayer in the execution application for awarding all the 
C consequential benefits, a1rears of salary, Deamess allowances, promotion 
'etc.-Grant of-Held, the executing court has no jurisdiction to grant any 
consequential relief which does not flow directly and necessarily from the 
declaratory decree. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Declaratory decree-Nature of-Held, A dec-
D larat01y decree merely declares the light of the decree holder vis-a-vis the 
judgment debtor and does not in tenns direct the judgment debtor to do or 
refrain from doing a particular act or thing. 
Se1vice Law-Govemment Servant-Legal Position-A Govemment 
E se1vant acquires a status on his appointment and his 1ights and obligations 
are to be detennined by statute or statut01y rules which may be framed by the 
Govemment. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--0rder II Rule 2-Prayer for a declara-
tion in the initial suit under Specific Relief Act that respondent continues to 
F be in service-Subsequent suit claiming affears of salary-Bmred. 
The respondent was employed as a Clerk Grade I in the Irrigation 
Department of the appellant State Government. He was transferred from 
Gandhi Sagar to Jabalprnr. The respondent requested for his transfer to 
Mandsore, a place near his hometown to look after his ailing father which 
G request was not acceded to and the respondent submitted his resignation. 
The respondent was never informed if his resignation had been accepted 
The respondent did not join his duty thereafter and remained absent for 
more than five years. The appellant assumed that the respondent had 
voluntarily resigned from his service and thus his service stood ter-
H minated. 
662 
-
STATE v. M.L. SHARMA 
663 
The respondent tiled a suit for declaration against the appellant that A 
he continued to be in service. The suit was decreed in his favour. The 
appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. 
The appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court which was also 
dismissed. Consequently the appellant reinstated the respondent. · 
The respondent-decree holder, then filed an execution application 
for awarding all the consequential benefit, arrears of salary, dearness 
allowances, promotion etc. in the court of Civil Judge; and the same was 
allowed. The appellant pl"eferred a revision which was also dismissed by 
the Additional District Judge. The appellant then, filed a writ petition in 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the order of the Civil 
Judge executing the declaratory decree and that of the Additional District 
Judge upholding in revision the order of the Civil Judge. The petition was 
dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this 
appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that once the court 
gave a declaration that the respondent was still in continuance of service 
of the appellant and his services were never terminated, the necessary 
consequence would be that the respondent should be granted arrears of 
salary and other consequential benefits by the appellant unlike in a case 
B 
c 
D 
which was governed by the law of Contract between the parties. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1. The respondent could not have sought execution of the 
declaratory decree when no relief was granted to him tow~rds the arrears 
p 
of salary and other consequential benefits. [670-D] 
2. A declaratory decree merely declares the right of the decree holder 
vis-a-vis the judgment debtor and does not in terms direct the judgment 
debtor to do or refrain from doing any particular act or thing. Since in the 
present case decree does not direct reinstatement or payment of arrears G 
of salary, the executing court could not issue any process for the purpose 
as that would be going outside or beyond the decree. The executing court 
has no jurisdiction to direct payment of salary or grant any other conse-
quential relief which does not flow directly and necessarily from the 
declaratory decree. [667-H; 668-A] 
H 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
3.1. Normally in a case like the present one, the plaintiff when 
B 
c 
seeking relief of declaration that he continues to be in service woul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.