R.N Mittal, J.:— Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff-petitioner was a government employee. He was suspended from service on 1-2-1963 and thereafter was dismissed on 30-4-1964. He filed a suit on 15-6-66 for declaration that the order dated 30-4-64 removing him from service was illegal void and therefore not binding on him. He further prayed that he was entitled to the salary from 3-2-1963 to 13-6-1966 amounting to Rs. 8,354. He also claimed that he was entitled to all the consequential reliefs, in accordance with law. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and that decree was affirmed by the learned first appellate Court. The second appeal was allowed on 7-11-75 by this Court and the order dated 30 4-1964 removing him from service was quashed. It was further declared that he would be deemed to be in service throughout and entitled to all the consequential reliefs in accordance with law.
2. After the decision of the appeal, the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated on 23-1-1976. He rejoined the service in pursuance of that order on 16-2-1976. After joining service, he claimed salary from the Government from 1-2-1963 to 15-2-1976. However, he was paid a sum of Rs. 18,425 on account of salary alleged to be for three years immediately preceding his reinstatement Thereafter, he filed an execution application in the Executing Court for the recovery or salary from 1-2-1963 to 15-2-1976. Objections were filed by the Government to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to any salary on the ground that the same had been declined to him in the appeal. The learned executing Court accepted the objection petition and dismissed the execution application. The plaintiff decree-holder has come up in revision to this Court.
3. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the decree-holder is entitled to recover the salary in execution of the decree dated 7-11-1975?
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the decree, though one for declaration, is executable. He has further argued that in the regular second appeal his claim for salary from 1-2-1963 to 14-6-1966 was declined by this Court, but that will not debar him from recovering the amount of salary after 15-6-1966 up to the date of his rejoining the service. On the other hand, Mr. Shergill, the learned counsel for the State, has urged that once the claim of the petitioner had been disallowed up to the date of the suit, be cannot claim the salary thereafter.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel. I, however, agree with the submission made by Mr. Garg. The operative part of the judgment passed by this Court in the regular second appeal is as follows:—
“For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the findings of the Courts below on issue No. 3 are set aside; the order dated April 30, 1964, removing the appellant from service, Ex. D. 8 is hereby quashed and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff is decreed with costs throughout. The plaintiff-appellant will be deemed to be in service throughout, and entitled to all the consequential reliefs in accordance with law.”
6. Issue No. 3 was—
“Whether the order of suspension dated 30-4-1963 as well as the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service is illegal and void and what is its effect?”
7. From the aforesaid decree, it is clear that this Court not only held the dismissal of the petitioner from service as illegal but also gave a declaration that he would be entitled to all the consequential reliefs in accordance with law. It is true that the decree is of declaratory nature but it has been said by the Supreme Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 10572 of 1978 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1299 and 1298 of 1969, Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal v. State of Punjab, decided, on 16-10-1978, that such decrees are executable. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:—
“It has become necessary to clarify the order made by this Court allowing the appeals of the petitioner. According to the decision of this Court, the petitioner was given a declaration that he would be deemed to continue in service with effect from the date of the suit. As a logical consequence of this declaration, it is manifest that the petitioner would be entitled to back salary right from 1st June, 1962 till 9th February, 1974. The only way in which the judgment of this Court can be implemented is to pay the aforesaid amount of salary to the petitioner. With these observations, this application is disposed of the amount of the salary must be paid within two months from today.”
8. Following the aforesaid decision, similar view was taken by this Court in State Of Punjab…(Petitioner); v. Krishan Mohan Sarvia…()., 1980 Current Law Journal 9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get his salary in pursuance of the declaratory decree of this Court.
9. Mr. Shergill has argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary as the relief regarding it had been declined to him in the second appeal read with the order dated 20-4-1979. I am not impressed with this submission. As already stated above, the petitioner in the suit claimed salary from 1-2-1963 to 14-6-1966. That relief was declined because the petitioner had not paid the court fee on that relief. The petitioner is deemed to have been denied relief for salary for that period and not for the subsequent period. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the period from 1-2-1963 to 14-6-1966 but for the later period he is entitled to the same. However, whatever amount has already been paid to the petitioner, that will be taken into account. For the aforesaid reasons, I partly accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Executing Court and remand the case to it for executing the decree as indicated above. No order as to costs.
10. Appeal partly allowed.