1. The matter here concerns the execution of a declaratory decree granted in favour of Rohini Kumar. On 19 October 1981, Rohini Kumar filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to seniority in the clerical cadre of the Transport Department of the State of Punjab with effect from 20 September 1961, and all consequential benefits acting therefrom. The suit was dismissed oh 31 July 1982, but, was decreed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Sri M.S Sehmee on 4 September 1984. The second appeal filed against this judgment and decree was later dismissed by this Court.
2. It was sometime thereafter that Rohini Kumar filed a petition under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the decree passed in his favour was not being implemented by the Director, State Transport, Chandigarh.
3. The trial Court dismissed this application under the Contempt of Courts Act holding that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Rohini Kumar had been fully implemented as the decree granted to him was with regard to his seniority in the cadre of clerks and not seniority and promotion to the post of assistant and, therefore, there was no violation of the decree by the Director.
4. Further, it was held that as regards consequential benefits, the petitioner had failed to show what precisely these were. It was stated in this behalf that only a vague figure of Rs. 39,000 by way of arrears had been mentioned, but the petitioner had failed to show by way of any calculations how he was entitled to this sum.
5. Besides seeking to challenge this order in revision, in this Court, the petitioner Rohini Kumar also filed another suit on 17 July 1987, seeking a declaration that he was senior to Tarsem Kumar. Consequential benefits were also claimed. This suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner, Rohini Kumar, on 10 February 1988, whereby, it was held that he was senior to Tarsem Kumar and was entitled to promotion as assistant from the date when the said Tarsem Kumar was promoted, namely, 1 November 1966, and further that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits of pay and allowances. This decree was upheld in appeal, both by the lower appellate Court as also by this Court in Regular Second Appeal.
6. Later, when Rohini Kumar took out execution of this subsequent decree, an objection was raised on behalf of the State of Punjab that the decree being merely a declaratory decree was not executable This plea was, however, negatived by the executing Court, by its impugned order of 24 August 1988.
7. The law is well settled that once a declaratory decree has been passed in favour of an employee holding that he continues to be in service, he can realise all the arrears of pay due to him in execution of the decree. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh Sidhu v. Punjab University, Chandigarh [1983 (85) P.L.R 46], which was later followed in Ram Sarup Bhalla…(Petitioner); v. The State Of Punjab…(). [1985 (1) S.L.R 433] and Darshaan Kumar v. State of Haryana [1987 (4) S.L.R 503]. No exception can thus be taken to the impugned order of the executing Court holding the decree obtained by the petitioner, Rohini Kumar, to be executable.
8. As regards the application filed by Rohini Kumar, under the Contempt of Courts Act, this is clearly rendered infructuous by the subsequent decree obtained by the petitioner and the relief claimed being covered by it.
9. In the result, the application under the Contempt of Courts Act is hereby dismissed as infructuous while the impugned order holding the decree to be executable is upheld and affirmed. Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.