- (1.) Balraj Sagar decree holder filed the present execution application against State of Punjab judgment/debtor stating that the suit filed by the petitioner was initially dismissed by the trial Court against which an appeal filed by the decree-holder, judgment of the trial Court was reversed and Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, passed a decree against which State of Punjab filed an appeal in this Court which was dismissed and later on Supreme Court of India, dismissed the Special Leave Petition of the State of Punjab. Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court with the following observations :- "We are not inclined to interfere as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the name of the respondent in the combined cadre of seniority list of Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection) Class-II (Men and Women) was due to a mistake. The State Government is still at liberty to rectify the same after notice to the respondent and giving him an opportunity of hearing. With these observations the special leave petition is dismissed."
(2.) Petitioner filed the present execution application on the ground that the decree passed in his favour has not been observed in letter and spirit. During the course of proceedings, property of the judgment debtor was attached but in view of the undertaking given by Shri Teja Singh, Administrative Officer, D.P.I. Schools, Punjab, on 13.11.1987, the property under attachment was released. Shri Teja Singh made a statement that the case of the decree holder would be decided within a period of three months from 13.11.1987. The case could not be decided within three months because the decree holder filed civil writ petition in the High Court and obtained a stay order of status quo. Decree-holder has pleaded in the present petition that although period of three months has expired yet the case of decree holder has not been decided by the judgment debtor and hence Shri Teja Singh, Administrative Officer, who had given an undertaking to the Court that the matter would be decided within a period of three months from 13.11.1987, is liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.
(3.) The case put up by the respondent-State is that the Supreme Court of India while disposing of the Special Leave Petition in its order, reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, had left it open to the State to rectify the mistake (regarding the inclusion of the name of decree holder in the combined cadre of seniority list of the Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection) Class-II after issuance of notice to the decree and giving him an opportunity of hearing. State of Punjab, accordingly issued a show cause notice dated 18.11.1987 to the decree holder for review of seniority in P.E.S. Class-II (School and Inspection) cadre. Petitioner-decree holder although had been issued several notices and served personally did not choose to appear before Shri Rajinder Singh, Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Education, and as such was proceeded against ex pate. It was held by the Secretary to Government of Punjab in his order dated 29.3.1989 that there was no valid ground for inclusion of the name of petitioner decree holder in PES-II (School and Inspection) cadre and ordered the correction of the mistake by deleting the name of the petitioner-decree holder from the said joint seniority list of P.E.S. Class-II. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner decree holder, as modified by the Supreme Court, has been implemented in letter and spirit and, therefore, nothing more is to be done and the execution application should be consigned to the record having been fully satisfied. The case of petitioner decree-holder is that the decree passed in his favour by the Additional District Judge which was upheld by this Court and the Supreme Court has not been complied with. He has pleaded that Supreme Court of India had never modified the order.;