Naresh Bhatotia vs Management Board Of Ansal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 19677 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144053




128                                                                   2023:PHHC:144053



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


1.                                                 Civil Revision No. 7603 of 2019


Naresh Bhatotia
                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                          Versus

Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology/University and Another

                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

                                          AND

2.                                                 Civil Revision No. 7606 of 2019


Naresh Bhatotia
                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                          Versus

Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology/University and Another

                                                                    ... Respondent(s)

                      DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2023

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:      Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
              for the petitioner(s).

              Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate
              for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,

two connected revision petition involving the identical issues shall stand

dispose of.

2. The petitioner herein was successful in a suit filed by him vide

judgment and decree dated 11.05.2017. A decree for declaration with a

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144053

2023:PHHC:144053

Civil Revision No. 7606 of 2019

consequential relief of mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the

petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service as

Deputy Registrar-cum-Head Administration. During the pendency of the

execution petition, the petitioner filed an application for permission to lead

additional evidence as he complains that he is not being paid the appropriate

salary.

3. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Registrar-cum-Assistant

Professor, Ansal University, appeared in evidence as RW.1. On being

questioned, he admitted that after the Registrar, the second highest

administrative post is that of Deputy Registrar-cum-Head Administration.

However, he failed to disclose the salary of the Registrar. He himself was the

Assistant Registrar-cum-Assistant Professor in the University. However, he

failed to disclose his own salary. Thus, the petitioner, forced by the

circumstances, filed the application. However, the Court has dismissed the

application on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to get the decree

implemented, but he has no reason to summon the salary slip of his counter-

parts. The correctness of this order has been challenged in this revision

petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and

with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring

to the deposition of Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Registrar-cum-

Assistant Professor, submits that the effort is being made to deny the

petitioner what is due to him. He submits that though the petitioner has been

reinstated in service, however, his salary is not being appropriately fixed in 2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144053

2023:PHHC:144053

Civil Revision No. 7606 of 2019

accordance with the judgment of the Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the

respondents submits that though in the hierarchy, the post of Deputy

Registrar-cum-Head Administration is the second highest administrative post

after the Registrar, however, the petitioner has no jurisdiction to summon the

salary slip of the Vice Chancellor, Registrar and Assistant Registrar.

6. This Court has considered the submissions. On reading of the

deposition of Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Assistant Registrar-cum-Assistant

Professor, it is evident that an effort has been made to withhold from the

Court the amount of monthly salary which is being paid to the post of

Assistant Registrar, which is at a lower pedestal than the petitioner who is

Deputy Registrar-cum-Head Administration. It is also not in dispute that the

post of Deputy Registrar-cum-Head Administration, which the petitioner

holds, is the next highest post after the Registrar. In such circumstances, the

Executing Court has taken a very conservative view against him. In order to

resolve the controversy, the Executing Court could have summoned the

salary slip or the required information from the judgment debtor.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, both the revision petitions

are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The applications filed by the

petitioner shall stand allowed. The Executing Court, as prayed for by the

petitioner, is directed to permit the petitioner to summon the salary slip.

The judgment and decree was passed in the year 2017. Approximately, a

period of more than six years has already elapsed. Hence, the Executing

Court is requested to conclude the hearing of the execution petition

expeditiously, positively, within a period of three months from today.

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144053

2023:PHHC:144053

Civil Revision No. 7606 of 2019

8. At this stage, the learned counsel representing the respondents

submits that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. This

Court has considered the submissions. In order to implement the decree, the

Court is required to get complete information. The judgment debtor cannot

withhold the necessary information in order to frustrate the decree.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge November 14, 2023 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144053

4 of 4