- (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the judgement of the Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur-City, Jaipur dated 5. 03. 1993 rejecting the objection of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) SOHAN Lal was employed in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. His services were terminated against which, suit was filed for declaration that the termination was invalid. The suit was decreed on 27th Feb. 1991 and the following decree was passed : "in the result, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of declaration is decreed and it is hereby declared that the orders thereby terminating the service of the plaintiff dated 21. 9. 1978 are illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and are hereby quashed. The plaintiff is entitled to have all the monetary benefits in the same way as if he was in service. " In the suit, six issues were framed including in respect of jurisdiction. The Suit was decreed as stated above and consequent upon the decree, Sohan Lal moved an application for execution. To the execution, an objection was filed by the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that Sohan Lal was not entitled to the salary for the period after termination, inasmuch as, he ceased to be an employee of the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation thereafter. The Contention further was that the decree being only for declaration that the order of termination was invalid, the respondent-Sohan Lal on the plea of obtaining consequential relief, was not entitled to payment of salary for the period after termination. The objection was over ruled by the executing court, against which the present revision has been filed. The declaration granted by the court below was that the termination order was invalid As a result whereof, the termination became illegal, void and ineffective. The consequence of rendering termination order as invalid was that it was never passed. The respondent-Sohan Lal, as a result whereof, contented in the Court below as well as before this Court that he would be deemed to be continuing.
(3.) THE decree for declaration had to be considered as the court announcing the legal consequences of the facts found. In State of Kerala vs. T. P. Roshana (1), the Supreme Court held that the power of the High Court to grant consequential relief meant to do complete justice between the parties. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Burma Construction Co. vs. State of Orissa (2) in connection with the claim for refund of tax illegally realized. It is true that Burma Construction Co. vs. State of Orissa (supra) was in a different context than with which we are concerned in the present case The distinguishing feature further can also be that this revision involves the interpretation of a declaratory decree granted in a civil suit holding that the services had been illegally terminated. ;