- (1.)THE petitioner filed a civil suit against the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, challenging his dismissal from service. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on the appeal taken by the petitioner to the Appellate Court, the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. The first Appellate Court found that the resolution of the Municipal Corporation removing the petitioner was illegal on various grounds. The appeal taken by the Municipal Corporation before this Court in R. S. A. No. 321 of 1973 was also dismissed on 15. 4. 1982. Armed with a decree the petitioner filed an execution application before the Court of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, on 4. 2. 1984, but the same was declined vide order dated 7. 4. 1989 on the ground that as the suit and the decree was for declaration only without any prayer for consequential relief, the relief of reinstatement in service and payment of back-wages could not be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed.
(2.)THE only point urged by Mr. Pawan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in the case of a declaratory suit all the consequential reliefs flowing from the order struck down as void must accrue to the decree-holder and he must be deemed to be in a position identical to that existing prior to the passing of the order of termination of his service. Reliance for this proposition has been laid on Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barnala, (1983) 85 P. L. R. 21.
(3.)MR. J. R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that in the execution-application filed by the decree-holder, the claim was only for reinstatement and there was no prayer for back-wages. He has also urged that the petitioner was not a Government employee covered by Article 311 of the Constitution of India and as such a contract of personal service could not be enforced against the respondent.