D.P.GUPTA,J. - (1.)THE only question which has been raised in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to his emoluments including wages for the period before his reinstatement.
(2.)THE petitioner was employed as a 'Rakshak' in the Northern Railway Workshop at Bikaner. He was suspended w.e.f. March 24, 1962. charge -sheet was served upon him and as he was found guilty of the charge, he was removed from the railway service on Dec. 1, 1962. The petitioner thereupon filed a suit in the court of (sic)Munsif, Bikaner, which was decreed by the learned Mubsif on May 29, 1967. The trial court gave a decree in (sic)favour of the petitioner declaring that the order of his removal was null and void and was of no effect and that the petitioner should be deemed to have continued in Railway service even after December 1, 1962. The decree also contained a recital that the petitioner was entitled to his salary in accordance with his grade pay. The railway administration filed an appeal against the decree passed by the learned Muosik Bikaner but the appeal was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner by his judgment and decree dated August 10, 1970. Thereafter the petitioner was reinstate on his post w e f. May 22, 1971.
The petitioner has claimed in this writ petition the arrears of emoluments from December 1, 1962 to the date of his reinstatement i.e. May 22, 1971. the respondents have not disputed the facts so far as the dismissal of the petitioner from railway service fend the subsequent passing of the decree by the civil court in the suit filed by the petitioner, Holding his dismissal as void and the eventual reinstatement of the petitioner on May 22, 1971, are concerned. However, it was stated by the respondents that the emoluments from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement were not paid as no decree was passed to that effect and that arrears preceding a period of 3 (sic)yrs. prior to the date of reinstatement, could not be paid. It was submitted that even if a suit would have been filed by the petitioner, he could not get arrears of (sic)moluments for a period beyond three years preceding the dale of the suit. It was also submitted by the respondents that the petitioner filed an execution application before the trial court, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the decree passed on May 29, 1967 was declaratory in nature. Then the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on May 8, 1971 and further a second appeal has been filed by the petitioner in this Court and thus it was submitted that as the petitioner was availing an alternative remedy of executing the decree passed by the Civil Court, no relief should be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. It was also submitted that payment of arrears of emoluments was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code.

(3.)SO far as the question of alternative remedy is concerned, the two courts below have held that a decree parsed by the learned Munsif on May 29, 1967 which was upheld by the learned Civil Judge on appeal on August 10, 1970 was merely a declaratory decree and the petitioner could not get arrears of emoluments in execution of the said decree. It has also been stated at the Bar that the execution second appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also undertakes that if any proceedings in respect of the execution matter are still pending, the same shall be withdrawn by the petitioner.