D.S.Sinha - (1.) THE list has been revised. No body appears in support of this application.
(2.) BY means of this application, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant seeks transfer of Civil Revision No. 160 of 1987, Ram Nath v. Vishnu Dutt, pending in the court of 7th Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. From a perusal of the averments made in the affidavit of Sri Ram Nath, filed in support of the transfer application, it appears that the prayer for transfer of the case is founded, principally, on the ground that the court had declined to grant adjournment in the case on a certain date and while granting adjournment on another date imposed costs of Rs. 150/-. Refusal to adjournment, or imposition of costs while granting adjournment, cannot, ordinarily, constitute sufficient ground for transfer of a case. Further a faint assertion in the counter affidavit in justification of the prayer for transfer is that the court is annoyed on account of the fact that the applicant had sought transfer of the revision. This too cannot be the basis for transfer of the case inasmuch as the assertion is conjectural.
(3.) THERE is another faint suggestion in the affidavit that the Presiding Officer has expressed some opinion with regard to the merits of the case by gestures and observations. The averment is blissfully vague and totally unfit for any consideration. The instant application lacks merit and is, therefore, rejected. Application rejected. (Lucknow Bench) U. C. Srivastava and B. L. Loomba, J J. Civil Revision Nos. 98 and 136 of 1988 against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1988 passed by District Judge, Hardoi. Decided on January 10, 1989. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hardoi (Applicant) versus Rajesh Kumar Singh (Opposite Party) U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, Sec. 5 (6) and (7)-Order covered by Sec. 5 (7)-It is executable and benefits and privileges and emoluments etc. if are not granted, the employee will be entitled to get the same through the court of law if there is declaration in his favour-1985 AWC 997 Overruled. Sub-section (7) of section 5 of the Act is not confined to any other order, but the section as it is, includes not only order but any order coupled with the declaration. Section 5 (6) of the Act is confined only in case relief of declaration is granted but in case declaration coupled with any relief is granted it is covered by section 5 (7) and it is executable and benefits and privileges and emoluments etc. if are not granted, the employee will be entitled to get the same through the Court of law if there is declaration in his favour. (Para 8) Cases Referred (Paragraphically) :-AIR 1961 SC 221 (Para 3), 1985 AWC 997 (Para 4), 1985 SLR 433 (Para 5), 1985 LabIC 124 (Para 5), 1982 UP LB EC 372 (Para 5), 1988 UP LB EC 173 (Para 5), 1975 CrLLJ 679 (Para 5). Kapil Deo and I. H. Farooqui for Applicant. U. C. Srivastava, J.-The question in these revision applications is as to whether the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal quashing the termination order of the employee and declaring that he will continue to remain in service and will be entitled to salary and other allowances etc. can be executable by Civil Court or it is pure and simple declaratory decree which cannot be executed and the order passed by the Tribunal will remain only on paper. 2. Under the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter known as the Act), the Tribunal is to adjudicate upon matters in respect of employees of the State. Section 5 of the Act provides powers and procedure of the Tribunal. Sub-section (6) and (7) of section 5 of the Act, which are relevant, read as follows :- (6). A declaration made by the Tribunal shall be binding on the claimant and his employer as well as on any other public servant who has, in respect of any claim affecting his interest adversely, been given an opportunity of making a representation against it, and shall have the same effect as a declaration made by a court of law. " " (7). Where the Tribunal makes an order other than a declaration referred to in sub-section remains uncomplied with for a period of three months from the date of such order, the Tribunal may, on the application of the party in whose favour the order stands, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount awarded or, as the case may be, for any other relief granted by the Tribunal. Any party, in whose favour such certificate is issued, may apply to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the employee is for the time being serving, or, as the case may be, last served such employer, for execution of the order of the Tribunal, and such Court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief passed by itself in a suit. " 3. Once a Government servant or employee or an employee of a Statutory Corporation gets appointment he gets a particular status and the legal position is, more or less, that of a contract. In case he is deprived of his status and a declaration is given that he is entitled to same status which he has been deprived and he is placed back in the position from where he was displaced, he will continue to be entitled to hold the same status, privileges, rights and obligations attached to the same notwithstanding the intervening circumstances with which he was deprived. A declaration granted by the Tribunal under section 5 sub-section (6) shall be binding on the claimant and the employer as well as any other public servant once a declaration made by the Tribunal has been made of binding effects one who is bound by it has to give effect to the same, and the same cannot be ignored by an employer or any other authority and the employer is bound to respect the same and cannot raise any objection to it and if the matter has gone to a Court of law obviously it will give recognition to the same. In this connection observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 may be made : " Before concluding, we consider it proper to draw attention to one aspect of the case. It is the essence of the rule of law that every authority within the State including the Executive Government should consider itself bound by and obey the Law. It is fundamental to the system of policy that India has adopted and which is embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land are vested with the powers of interpreting the law and of applying it to the facts of the cases which are properly brought before them. If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or in its application, resort must be had to such a review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion or orderly administration and civil Government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regards private parties, the duty to obey is all the more imperative in the case of Government authorities otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the State policy, viz. the executive and another branch the Judicial. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming mockery. When the State Government obeys a law, or gives effect to an order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing anything which detracts from its dignity but rather, invests the law and the Court with the dignity which are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive Government itself, in a democratic setup." 4. This observation not only reminds the Government and the Governmental authorities their duties and functions but rather restrains them from raising any objection against an order or decree which is binding on it and which it is bound to give effect to Here, it appears, that the Civil Court to which the matter was sent, in one case, objected on the ground that the decree is declaratory in nature and cannot be executed. It may be noticed that the declaration was in respect of legal status, which the employee concerned was holding and with which he has been deprived and which deprivation has been held to be wrongful and it has been further made clear that he will be entitled to all the privileges of the said office with which he has been deprived of. As such it will not be in the nature of pure and simple declaratory decree which cannot be executed. A Single Judge of the Court, while interpreting Section 5 sub-sections (6) and (7) of the Act in M. C. Verma v. State of U. P., 1985 AWC 997 has held that the order passed by the Tribunal, holding that the termination order was illegal, is not executable as a decree for declaration on the execution side. It was further observed that in view of language of Section 5 sub-section (7) of the Act any other order other than of declaration has been made executable. 5. In Ram Sarup Bhalla v. State of Punjab, 1985 SLR 433, a Single Judge of Punjab High Court has held that declaration in respect of an employee whose services have been terminated is executable and practically the same view has been taken by Jammu and Kashmir in the case : Managing Director, J. and K. Tourism v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, 1985 LabIC 124, wherein it has been held that where suit for declaration that the order terminating the services of the plaintiff is illegal and demanding further relief by claiming emoluments attached to the post is decreed, the decree is not a purely declaratory decree in nature and is executable. In the Zila Parishad, Allahabad v. Sadanand Misra, 1982 UP LB and Education Cases 372, although there was no discussion on the question but similar order passed by the Tribunal was held to be executable. The case reported in Om Prakash v. Home Department, U. P. Shasan, 1988 UP LB EC 173, which was a case under the Contempt of Courts Act, is not of much help in this case. The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prakash Chand v. S. S. Grewal, 1975 Cr.L.L.J. 679, in which after considering various cases, observed : "............a decree of a Civil Court declaring the order of dismissal of a public servant as void and illegal and treating him to be still in service is to be construed as enjoining upon the Government to reinstate the decree holder and grant him all the benefits and privileges, including his past and future emoluments. Such a decree will entitle the Government servant concerned to claim the necessary reliefs from the Government and in case of the failure of the Government to grant those reliefs, to file a suit or other legal proceedings to enforce the rights given to him by the declaratory decree. The Government will of course, be also entitled to plead such defences as may be open to it to defeat the claim of the petitioner. But, it will not be open to the Government to challenge the decree or the legal status of the decree holder as a Government servant to which the decree restores him. " 6. The spirit of Section 5 sub-section (6) of the Act which has been passed by the Legislation is that in case the Tribunal grants a declaration, the employer, who is bound by it, has to give full effect to the same. As the order passed by the Tribunal is binding, it seems the Legislature did not consider it necessary to make any specific provisions for its execution as the order cannot be ignored or by-passed. The State Government or the statutory bodies, as the case may be, are bound to obey the law and give effect to the order passed by the Tribunal.;