Punjab-Haryana High Court
Medical Superintendent, Guru Gobind ... vs Dharam Raj Garg And Ors on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:035155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-473-2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 12.03.2024
Medical Superintendent, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College
and Hospital, Faridkot
...Petitioners
Versus
Dharam Raj Garg and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
RITU TAGORE, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 04.01.2024
(Annexure P-5) and order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot in Execution
Petition No.206 of 2015 titled 'Dharam Raj Garg Vs. State of Punjab and
others' directing the JD-petitioner to comply with the judgment and decree
dated 15.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) regarding payment of interest on benefits
of increment, promotion and commuted pension of respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent
No.1 filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to interest on the delayed
amount of retiral benefits paid by the petitioner from the date of its
entitlement till the date of payment with interest @ 12% per annum. The
said suit was decreed and appeal preferred against judgment dated
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:035155
15.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) by the petitioner was dismissed vide judgment
dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2). The respondent No.1 thereafter filed an
Execution Petition No.206 of 2015 before Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Faridkot.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has paid
Rs.3,61,750/- to respondent No.1 and has fully complied with the decree
dated 15.07.2015 affirmed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that calculation provided
by respondent No.1, claiming Rs.42,49,546/-, is altogether wrong and
learned Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the petitioner
to pay interest on benefits such as increment, promotion and commuted
pension, which were not granted by the Court in its judgment dated
15.07.2015. The learned counsel stated that learned trial Court in its
judgment dated 15.07.2015 has clearly recorded two different reliefs; i)
relief of grant of interest on delayed retiral benefits, and ii) grant of relief of
increment, promotion and commuted pension with no interest on the said
benefits. In support of his plea, learned counsel referred to the reliefs granted
by the learned trial Court in judgment dated 15.07.2015.
5. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the observations made
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case titled Meenakshi Saxena and another v.
ECGC Ltd. and another, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 4 and Topanmal Chhotamal
v. Kundomal Gangaram and Others AIR 1960 SC 388, stated that it is
settled position of law that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.
Reiterating his submissions, learned counsel stated that Executing Court
wrongly interpreted the judgment of learned trial Court and made a prayer to
set aside the impugned orders.
6. Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:035155
orders under challenge are valid and justified. Learned Executing Court has
rightly interpreted the judgments of learned trial Court dated 15.07.2015,
affirmed by learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2018. The
learned counsel stated that both the Courts below, granted interest on all the
reliefs given to the respondent No.1 and Director Health and Family Welfare
Punjab, Chandigarh, Smt. Adarsh Pal Kaur in para No.3 of her affidavit
dated 24.05.2023 has admitted that interest @ 9% per annum has been
calculated on each delayed payment, and further admitted that
Rs.34,96,359/- calculated by concerned quarter has not been paid to
respondent No.1. The learned counsel contended that this admission leaves
no shred of doubt that respondent No.1 is entitled for the interest on all the
reliefs and department is purposely not releasing the due amount to the
respondent no.1 and is harassing him.
7. By referring to judgment and decree dated 15.07.2015, learned
counsel urged that learned trial Court has clearly granted interest @ 9% per
annum from the due date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum till
actual realization. The interest has been granted on all the benefits ruled in
favour of respondent No.1. Learned Executing Court has not breached its
jurisdiction while giving the directions to the petitioner and others (JDs) to
give interest on due benefits. A prayer is made to dismiss the petition.
Reliance is placed on the authority titled Bhavan Vaja and others v. Solanki
Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and another, (1973) 2 SCC 40.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the paper book and the documents placed on record (affidavit of
Dr.Adarsh Pal Kaur and grounds of appeal).
9. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for
declaration seeking interest @ 12% per annum compound on delayed
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:035155
payments of his retiral benefit and benefits of two remaining increments on
acquiring higher education, step up increments (ACP) commuted pension
against State of Punjab through Secretary, Department of Health and Family
Welfare; Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh; Director
Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh; Medical
Superintendent, G.G.S Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and
Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh (defendants before the learned trial
Court). After contest, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated
15.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) and appeal preferred by Medical Superintendent
GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot was dismissed vide judgment
dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, no second appeal was filed
against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018. It is also a matter of
record that respondent No.1 filed execution petition (Annexure P-5) that led
to passing of impugned orders (Annexure P-5 and P-6).
10. It is apposite here to reproduce the relief sought by respondent
No.1 in the suit filed by him, which reads as under:-
"Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is
entitled to get interest on the delayed payment amount of retiral
benefits paid by the defendants to the plaintiff from the date of
its entitlement till the date of payment @ 12% per annum
compound and the plaintiff is also entitled to get the benefit of
two remaining increments on acquiring higher education
(Diploma in Orthopaedics and M.S General Surgery) in
addition to four increment already paid by the department in
lieu of the above and the plaintiff is also entitled to get the
benefit of step up increment (A.C.P) after completion of 4, 9
and 14 years of service or completion of 8, 18 years of service
in the department and the plaintiff is also entitled to get
promotion after getting the benefits of step up increments
(A.C.P) from his due date and plaintiff is also entitled to get
benefit of revised grade w.e.f 01.10.1986 instead of 01.10.1987
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:035155
and plaintiff is also entitled to get the benefit of commuted
pension @ 10.46% instead of 6.21 which was released to the
plaintiff by the department and plaintiff is also entitled to get
the entire consequential arrears with interest @ 12 % per
annum compound from the date of its actual accrual till
realization in all AND for issuing mandatory injunction issuing
the directions to the defendants to pay interest @ 12 % per
annum compound on delayed payment of entire retiral benefits
paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and directions may also
be issued to release the benefit of remaining two increments on
acquiring higher education (Diploma in Orthopaedics and M.S
General Surgery) and direction may also be issued to release
the benefit of step up increment (ACP) on completion of 4,9 and
14 years of service in the department and also to promote the
plaintiff after giving benefit of ACP from the date of its actual
entitlement of promotion and directions may also be issued to
the defendants to commute pension of the plaintiff @ 10.46
instead of 6.21 which was earlier released by the defendants to
the plaintiff and directions may also be issued to the defendants
to pay revised grade to the plaintiff w.e.f 01.01.1986 instead of
01.10.1987 and finally the directions may also be issued to the
defendants to pay entire consequent arrears with interest @
12% per annum compound from the date of its actual accrual
till realization, in the interest of justice."
11. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the
following issues:-
"1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
2. XXXXX
3. XXXXX
4. XXXXX
5. Relief"
12. While answering issue No.1, learned trial Court observed as
under:-
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:035155
"XXXX
However, the rate of interest prayed by the plaintiff to my view appears to
be exorbitant. I deem it appropriate to grant interest @ 9% per annum
from the due date till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of
6% per annum till actual realization. Consequently, issue No.1 is decided
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants."
13. While answering issue No.5 the Court observed as under:-
"Issue No. 5 (Relief)
15. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiff is
decreed with costs to the effect that he is held entitled to get interest on the
delayed payment of the retiral benefits paid by the defendants to the
plaintiff @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of its due till date of decree
and @ 6% per annum future interest till its realization. He is further held
entitled to get benefit of two remaining increments on acquiring of higher
education and he is also entitled to get benefits of step up increments after
completion of 4, 9 and 14 or 8, 18 years of service, promotion in cadre
after getting step up increments, benefits of revised grade w.e.f 01.10.1986
instead of 01.10.1987, benefit of computed pension @ 10.46 instead of
6.02. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to
record room."
14. Perusal of judgment of the Appellate Court (Annexure P-2)
does not indicate that any specific plea or objections were raised by the
appellants regarding grant of interest on the benefits granted by learned trial
Court nor the grounds of appeal indicate so. The learned Appellate Court
affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court by observing as under:
"23. In view of above discussion and evidence adduced on file, it is clear
that it has been rightly held by learned lower Court that all the
defendants-respondents including appellant-defendant No.4, are
responsible for making payment of retiral benefits to the respondent-
plaintiff and it shows that the impugned judgment and decree has been
passed by learned lower Court after appreciating evidence adduced on file
by both the parties, in correct manner and it does not require any
interference of this court, therefore, findings of learned lower Court on all
the issues are affirmed.
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:035155
24. As there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and
decree dated 15.07.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, consequently,
appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No.4 Medical Superintendent,
GGS Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot fails and the same is hereby
dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court
file be returned alongwith a copy of this judgment and appeal file be
consigned."
15. It is settled legal doctrine that learned Executing Court cannot go
behind the decree under execution. Nonetheless, for construing a decree, the
learned Executing Court can and in appropriate cases take into consideration
the pleadings, the circumstances and the words employed in the judgment,
leading up to the decree. In Bhavan Vaja and others (supra), Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India observed that:-
"It is true that an executing court cannot go behind the
decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find
out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree it can and in
appropriate cases, it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well
as the proceedings leading upto the decree. In order to find out the
meaning of the words employed in a decree the Court, often has to
ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used.
That is the plain duty of the execution Court and if that Court fails to
discharge that duty it has plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested
in it. The jurisdiction of execution Court does not began and end with
merely looking at the decree as it was finally drafted."
16. Reverting to the prayer clause (set up in the suit), it shows that
respondent No.1 sought (i) declaration that he is entitled to get interest on
the delayed payments of retiral benefits paid by the defendants from the date
of its entitlement till the date of payment @ 12% per annum compound (ii)
further declaration that he is entitled to get the benefits of 2 remaining
increments on acquiring higher education in addition to four increments
already paid by the defendant department in lieu of the above and also
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:035155
entitled to the benefit of step up increment (ACP) after completion of
requisite years of service in the department and entitled to get promotion
after getting the benefits of step up increments from due date and is also
entitled to get the benefit of commuted pension along with entire
consequential arrears with interest @ 12% per annum compound from the
date of accrual till realization and, iii) decree for mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to pay interest @ 12% per annum compound on all
the benefits to which he is entitled and to pay entire consequent arrears with
interest @ 12% per annum compound from the date of accrual till
realization.
17. As evident and explicit from the relief clause, learned trial
Court decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 (plaintiff before the trial
Court) with cost.
18. As noticed and reproduced in preceding paragraphs, the learned
trial Court, while deliberating on the issue of interest, held respondent No.1
entitled to @ 9% and 6% interest, respectively. This conclusion arises when
the relief clause is read in its entirety, in the light of relief asked for.
Moreover, considering the fact that suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 was
decreed, entitling him to all the reliefs, it is fallacious to suggest that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not given the benefit of interest on those
reliefs.
19. Once benefits are given, a natural fall out is the grant of interest
on the granted reliefs. Here in present case, the learned trial Court has dealt
with the issue of interest separately. The learned Executing Court has rightly
interpreted the use of word 'further' after dealing with grant of interest on
one component of the benefit i.e. on delayed payment of retiral benefits, by
observing that interest on other benefits has also been granted in the same
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 9 2024:PHHC:035155
manner. The department through Director, Health and Family Welfare
(defendant No.2 before the learned trial Court) has admitted that
Rs.34,96,359/- so calculated by department has not been released to the
respondent No.1. The contention so raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that affidavit of Dr Adarsh Pal Kaur, Director, Health and family
Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh has been given under wrong impression or that
said affidavit is not binding on the department, cannot be countenanced. It is
no case that any such clarification was ever given by the department or by
the deponent at any point of time.
20. The dictionary meaning of the word 'further' is 'in addition'. As
an adjective, the word 'further' means 'additional thing'. Here in the present
case, learned trial Court used word 'further' as an adjective to 'add' on
further reliefs which already stand granted in previous sentence of the
judgment. By reading the judgment of the learned trial Court in entirely in
the context of the pleadings of the parties, the relief sought by the plaintiff in
the suit, deliberations made by the learned trial Court on the issue of interest
in the light of prayer made by the plaintiff to grant him interest on all the
benefits prayed for, the grant of the reliefs by the learned trial Court and use
of the word 'further' in the context of the reliefs granted, all leading to make
up the decree, leaves no manner of doubt that learned Executing Court
rightly construed and interpreted the judgment and decree passed by Courts
below.
21. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in
the revision and same is hereby dismissed.
22. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
23. Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
CR-473-2024 (O&M) 10 2024:PHHC:035155
compliance. Trial Court be notified that there is no stay in the present
execution.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035155
10 of 10
