MILAP CHAND JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated July 23, 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Execution Case No. 7 of 1981.
(2.) THE respondent -decree -holder Jialal Kapoor had obtained a decree in Civil Suit No. 13 of 1977 on May 24, 1940 and he submitted an application for execution under section XXI, Rule U, CPC. The plaintiff -decree -holder's services were terminated on 6 -2 -1974. He was holding the post of Chief Mining Engineer/Superintendent of Mines/Chief of Planning and Development (Mines). The plaintiff's suit was decreed in the following terms: (1) The order of termination passed by the defendant No. 2 on 6 -2 -1974 was illegal and void and as such it was ineffective as against the plaintiff; (2) That the plaintiff will be deemed to have continued in service of the defendant No. 2 and as such he shall be immediately reinstated on the same post on which he was working on 6 -2 -1974 and he shall be entitled to claim all salaries and other benefits from that particular date till he joins back his duties; (3) The plaintiff has filed the suit for grant of damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ - also but since his termination has been held to be void and his reinstatement has been ordered as such he shall be entitled to claim his salary and all other benefits and as such if they happen to be more than Rs. 1,00,000/ - then he shall pay proportionate court -fees on the excess amount received by him. After passing of the decree, the plaintiff was reinstated on the post on which he was working on 6 -2 -1974 but certain benefits, which he would have otherwise received, had his services not been terminated, were not allowed, to, in execution of the decree, he claimed these benefits The claims related to (it promotion and continuance of seniority; (ii) amount of provident fund; (iii) Conveyance allowance; (iv) benefit of Leave Travel Concession; (v) damages on account of payment of interest amounting to Rs. 1310/ -for not depositing the premium in time on service policy of Life Insurance; and (vi) court -fee. The learned District Judge allowed these claims in execution of the decree. With regard to the claim of promotion, he directed that the plaintiff -decree -holder is entitled to be considered for notional promotion during the period of termination and his reinstatement and it was further directed that this consideration shall be made within a period of six months from the date of the order. As regards the leave travel concession, the learned District Judge directed that the plaintiff -decree -holder would be entitled to claim leave travel concession, in case he under takes the journey to his home town of in India within a period of one year from the date of the order. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned District Judge, this revision has been filed by the judgment -debtor challenging the grant of reliefs in respect of promotion, provident fund, leave travel concession and damages on account of non -payment of premiums
(3.) I have heard Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned Counsel for the judgment -debtor petitioner and Mr. M. Mridul, learned Counsel for the plaintiff -decree -holder respondent.;