Dass Gupta Vs. State of U.P & Anr  INSC 1025 (27 August 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Hansaria B.L. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J)
JT 1996 (7) 657
27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present:
Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L.Hansaria Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B.Majmudar
B.D.Agarwal, Sr. Adv. and Vinay Garg, Adv. with him for the Petitioner
O R D
following Order of the Court was delivered: Rameshwar Dass Gupta V. State of U.P & Anr.
O R D
special leave petition arises from the order of the learned single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court made in Civil Revision No. 541/96 on April 24, 1996. The admitted position is that the
order of removal of the petitioner from service was set aside by the U.P.
Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The
Tribunal directed as under :
petition is partly allowed.
O.P. No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the confirmation of the petitioner on
Group 1 post and consequent promotion to Class II and Class I post from the
date on which his junior Sri Ram Niwas was promoted to such post with all
consequential benefits of seniority, salary, pension etc., arising therefrom."
In execution thereof, as per the rules, the petitioner laid execution petition
under Order 21 Rule 1, CPC read with clause  of the Tribunal's Rules, On a
certificate for recovery of the dues under the order. The executing court in
the impugned order dated December 12, 1995, in addition to the salary, gratuity
and pension in a total sum of Rs.1,97,575.32, awarded interest at 124 per annum
from the date of the execution till date of the order which worked out to the
sum of Rs.1,46,205/-. The respondents challenged the legality thereof only in
respect of the direction to pay the interest at 12%. In the revision, the High
Court in the impugned order held that the executing Court had no power to
enlarge the decree. The decree of the Tribunal does not grant payment of
interest and, Therefore, the order directing payment of interest was without
jurisdiction. Thus this special leave petition.
contended for the petitioner that though normally the executing Court cannot
grant interest, in view of the unreasonable stand taken by the judgment-debtors
in denying the legitimate claims of the petitioner and for prolonging the case
unreasonably for long time, the executing Court must be held to have
jurisdiction to grant interest in execution of the decree. He also contended
that the revisional power of the High Court should be confined only to errors
which do vitiate the ultimate justice. In this case, the executing Court,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has done justice to
the petitioner. The High Court, therefore, was not right in reversing the
order. We find no force in any of his contentions.
well settled legal position that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the
order or decree under execution, It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order
in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21, CPC.
view of the fact that it is a money claim, what was to be computed is the
arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his
promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done
and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder in a sum of
Rs.1,97,000/- and odd, the question that arises is whether the executing Court
could step out and grant a decree for interest which was not part of the decree
for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken
in execution ? In our view, the executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
and the order is one without jurisdiction and is thereby a void order. It true
that the High Court normally exercises its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115, CPC but once it is held that the executing Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction, it is but the duty of the High Court to correct the same.
Therefore, we do not find any illegally in the order passed by the High Court
in interfering with and setting aside the order directing payment of interest.
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
be the difference of amount due and payable to the petitioner, it is but the
duty of the respondents to pay the same as expeditiously as possible but not later
than three months from the date of the receipt of this order. The petitioner is
directed to communicate this order to the respondents.