VEDIC GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR, JHAJJAR versus SMT. RAJWANTI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
VEDIC GIRLS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR, JHAJJAR
v.
SMT. RAJWANTI AND ORS.
MARCH 8, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
C
s.47-Executing Court-Jurisdiction of-Scope-Held: The Executing
Court is required to execute the decree as made-Has no jurisdiction to
widen its scope or to add to it unless a specific question is raised relating
to discharge or satisfaction of the decree as envisaged in terms of s.47.
Respondent No.I filed suit for regularization of her services as a teacher
D in Appellant school w.e.f the date of her appointment alongwith consequential
benefits. The suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No.I but since
Appellant allegedly did not give effect to the decree, Respondent No.I put the
decree into execution. In the execution proceedings, the District Education
authorities calculated the balance dues payable to Respondent No. I with regard
E to salary arrears as per Government scale of Rs.1400-2600/-. Based upon
such calculation, Executing Court directed payment to Respondent No.I.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the decree passed
in the suit filed by Respondent No. l did not specify her salary on the basis
whereof her dues were to be calculated and that the subsequent calculation
F made by the District Education authorities had no foundation and the Executing
Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in relying upon the same.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I. The decree does not indicate the basis on which the dues of
G the Respondent No. I was to be calculated. When there were conflicting claims
regarding the salary payable to the Respondent No.I, the said respondent
ought to have taken steps to amend the prayers in the plaint so that proper
relief could be provided to her. The same not having been done, the Executing
Court had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree as passed, despite the fact
H
808
( -
f
-•
\
YED!C GIRLS SEl\IOR Sf::CONDARY SCHOOL .\RY.\ SA/\P,J ~IANDIR. JHAJJAR 1. RA.JWANTI !ALTA/1.1..\S i..:ABIR. J.j 809
thai'the Trial Judge had noticed the dispute and had even decided the same. A
[Para 24) (814-E, Fl
1.2. As will be evident from the decree, Respondent No. I was entitled
to regularization of her services, with other consequential relief and was also
entitled to receive her salary through crossed cheques. The Executing Court
was required to execute the decree as made and it had no jurisdiction to widen B
its scope or to add to it unless a specific question was raised relating to
discharge or satisfaction of the decree as envisaged in Section 47 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. (Para 25( (814-G, HJ
1.3. The Executing Court appears to have been misled by the application
filed on behalf of the decree-holder Respondent No. I indicating that her suit C
had been decreed by the Court with a direction upon the School authorities to
make payment to her by cheque of her dues as per Government Scffee. The
words "as per Government scale" do not find place in the decree as passed by
the Trial Court and this has resulted in the anomaly faced in these
proceedings. [Paras 26 and 271 [815-B, q
D
State of Punjab v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR (1990) SC 2177 and State
;.:
of Punjab v. Bula Singh. (1995) Supp. 3 SCC page 684, referred to.
2. Respondent No.I may approach the Trial Court for amendment of the
decree in accordance with law. (Para 28( [815-D)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1220 of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2004 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 6130 of2002.
Sanjay Sharawat for the Appellant.
Brijender Chahar, Somvir Singh Deswal, Shree Pal Singh, Harinder Mohan
Singh. Abhinav Jain, Jyoti Chahar, Renu Chaudhary, Vinay Garg Aribam
Guneshwar Sharma, Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav and T.V. George for the
F
Responden.t.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALT AMAS KABIR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The Respondent No. I in this appeal was appointed as Science H
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 3 S.C.R.
A Mistress in the Appellant School on 07.09.1988. At the time of joining her
I
duties she was given an appointment letter on 05.7.1988 indicating that she
~
was being appointed as Science ·Mistress in the school with effect from the
date she joined her duties in the grade of Rs. 1400-2600/- plus usual allowances
sanctioned by the Haryana Government fr

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