Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) THIS is an execution second appeal arising from the proceedings for execution of the decree in suit No. 315 of 1967 of the court of the Munsif City, Varanasi. The Plaintiff is the Appellant. The decree declares the order terminating the Plaintiff's services dated 13th January, 1966 to be ultra vires, illegal and ineffective and that he continued to be in service of the Respondent State. A sum of Rs. 2446,21 was also decreed in his favour as arrears of salary and other allowances upto the date of the suit. The Appellant sought to recover pendente lite and future salary also. The Respondent State objected under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection was allowed by the Executing Court and the Plaintiff's appeal therefrom was also dismissed by the court of the District Judge, Varanasi on 19th April, 1973. The present appeal is directed against that judgment. The Respondent State had in the meanwhile appealed from the decree in the original suit. That was Second Appeal No. 2223 of 1971 in this Court. It was allowed by this Court on 11th September, 1974 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court. Simultaneously it was ordered that the present execution second appeal be kept pending and heard after the decision of the appeal from the original decree remanded as aforesaid to the lower appellate court, along with the second appeal, if any filed therefrom or after the expiry of the limitation for preferring a second appeal therefrom.
(2.) THE appeal remanded as aforesaid stood transferred to the U.P. Public Services Tribunal under Section 6 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. That became Reference No. 1283 of 1976 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (I), Lucknow and was dismissed by an order dated 24th October, 1977. A certified copy of it has been filed in this Court with an application, which was allowed by me, and has been admitted in evidence in the present execution second appeal. The controversy between the parties giving rise to the present execution second appeal was whether the relief for recovery of pendente lite or future salary had been granted by the decree under execution. It was held by the executing court as also by the lower appellate court that the decree did not award any pendente lite or future salary. However, it appears from the judgment of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, that in its opinion the trial court had decreed the Plaintiff's claim for pendente lite salary and allowances also and only the claim for future salary had not been decreed, because the same had not been made. It has interpreted the trial court's decree to mean that the decreed claim for salary and allowances extended 'upto the date of the decree'. Now the decree of the trial court has merged in the order of the Services Tribunal and there can be no escape from the conclusion that under the final order as it now stands, the Plaintiff's claim for salary and allowances has been decreed upto the date of the decree. However, the trial court has under Sub -section (7) of Section 5 of the U.P. Public Services Tribunals Act, 1976 no jurisdiction to execute the orders of the Tribunal. The procedure for execution of the same is different, inasmuch as the Tribunal may, if the order remains uncomplied with for a period of three months, on an application, issue a certificate for the recovery of the amount awarded and the applicant may on the basis of the certificate apply in the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for the execution of the same.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the execution proceedings pending in the trial court are quashed for having become infructuous. The Plaintiff -appellant will be entitled to the refund of the court fees tendered by him for the recovery of the pendente lite and future salary and allowances in the executing court. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout.;