Ujagar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS judgment disposes of two Civil Revisions No. 644 of 1985, titled as The State of Punjab v. Radha Ram and Anr., and Civil Revisions No. 911 of 1985, titled as Municipal Committee, Barnala v. Radha Ram and Anr., as they arise out of the same order passed by the executing Court on 20th December, 1984.
(2.) THE facts leading to these revisions are that Radha Ram Respondent was working as Moharrir in Municipal Committee, Barnala since 2nd January, 1965, but by an order dated 26th July, 1966, the Committee terminated his services with immediate effect in pursuance of a Government direction, purporting to have been given under Section 41 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Radha Ram instituted the suit on 10th July, 1969 for a declaration that the termination order was absolutely wrong, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, null and void and that he be deemed to be still in service of the Committee, enjoying full rights and privileges of full pay, dear -ness allowance, including annual grade increments accrued or yet to accrue in future. The suit of Radha Ram Respondent was ultimately decided by this Court on 16th August, 1982. Thereafter Radha Ram took out execution proceedings, praying for the award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the salary from 10th July, 1969 to 31st October, 1972 and for payment of salary as an inspector from 1st November, 1972 and interest thereon. The execution petition was contested by both the revision Petitioners, i.e., the Municipal Committee, Barnala and the State of Punjab. The following issues arose out of the pleadings: 1. To what amount the decree holder is entitled to recover from Municipal Committee ? P DH 2. Whether the decree holder is entitled to be promoted as Octroi Inspector ? If so, from which date ? P DH. Relief ? 3. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the executing Court decided that Radha Ram Respondent No. 1 was entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, on the amount which was paid to him and to which he was entitled as Moharrir, from 10th July, 1969 to 20th December, 1982. So far as issue No. 2, was concerned, the executing Court held that the decree holder was entitled to be considered for promotion as inspector from 9th November, 1972 on which date his junior Gian Chand was promoted. Under relief, the executing Court directed payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on arrears of pay as Moharrir from 10th July, 1969 to 20th December, 1982 and made this interest payable on each month's pay according to the decree holder. As regards promotion as inspector, the Petitioners were directed to consider the case of the decree holder within two months of the date of the order. On preliminary hearing, Civil Revision No. 644 of 1985 was admitted and operation of the impugned, order was stayed meanwhile. Civil Revision No. 911 of 1985 was directed to be heard along with the other Civil Revision.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners have argued that there was no question of payment of interest on the arrears of salary directed to have been paid, as there is no specific order in the ultimate decree and judgment. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 argues that once an order of termination is quashed, it follows that the employee, in the eye of law, continues to be in service, and as a necessary consequence thereof, he would be entitled to all the emoluments accruing from that status. Since the order of termination was quashed, Respondent No. 1 was entitled to salary etc. to which he was otherwise entitled. So far as the question of interest on arrears of pay is concerned, he further submits that it is no longer a disputed question that in such a situation, the employee is entitled to interest, because of illegal deprivation of his salary.;