M.R. Sharma, J.(Oral) - (1.) The petitioner was working as a Patwari when his services were terminated. He challenged this order by filing a suit for declaration that the order terminating his services was illegal and he continued to be in service. This suit was decreed by the learned trial court, the appeal filed by the State Government before the learned lower appellate Court was dismissed and the judgment and the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was finally affirmed in R S. A. No. 362 of 1974 (State Government Vs. Chet Ram), decided on 19-4-1974 . Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for injunction with. the prayer that the State Government be ordered to pay him arrears of salary, gratuity, pension etc. That suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, on 8-5-1980 on the ground that such a suit was not maintainable. The petitioner went up in appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bhatinda on 7-8-1980. A copy of the order passed by the learned District Judge has been placed on record today.
(2.) The petitioner then took out execution of the decree passed in his favour. The learned executing court determined the amount and issued notice to the State Government to pay the disputed amount to the petitioner. However, on some objections being raised later on, the learned executing court reviewed its own order and dismissed the execution petition. The petitioner has come up in revision before this court.
(3.) It is settled law that when a declaration is granted in favour of a public servant to the effect that the order of his dismissal from service is illegal, then he is entitled to receive his arrears of salary and other emoluments of office including gratuity and pension etc. as a matter of course. This matter has been authoritatively settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Radha Ram Vs. Municipal Committee Barnala and another 1983 Simla Law Journal 163 . The difficulty, however, arises that in executing proceedings it becomes somewhat difficult for the executing court to determine the exact amount as also the date upto which the public servant, in whose favour the declaration is given, continues to be in service. If the State Government admits the claim of such a public servant to his satisfaction then no further dispute arises but in case there is a divergence of claims on this point then the public servant concerned has a right to file either a suit for injunction or a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the State Government be ordered to pay his arrears of salary etc. In the instant case the petitioner did file such a suit and it was wrongly held by the learned trial Court that the suit for injunction was not maintainable. In this matter the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of receiving his salary and other emoluments of his office because of the wrong view taken by the learned courts below on the question whether his suit for injunction lies or not. In order to do justice between the parties, I exercise my sou motu power of revision and set aside the judgment and decree dated 8-5-1980 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, as well as the judgment and decree dated 7-8-1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhatinda and direct the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda- (1) to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner, (2) to determine the salary and other allowances payable to the petitioner, (3) to determine the date up to which the petitioner was to continue in service under the rules, and (4) to pass a suitable order against the State of Punjab for the payment of amount due to the petitioner in accordance with law. Since I have restored the suit for injunction by the petitioner, this revision petition which arises out of the execution proceedings becomes in-fructuous and is dismissed as such. Any observation made by the learned trial court in execution proceedings shall not be taken into consideration against the petitioner and the learned trial court will decide the controversy afresh regardless of any view expressed in any proceedings. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 30-5-1983 who will recall the file from the record room and will proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law.;