JUDGMENT : R.A. Misra, J. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, 2. This revision arises out of the order dated 6-8-1983, passed by Sri R. C. Agarwal, District Judge, Bijnor, allowing the objections raised on behalf of the State that the execution moved in the court of District Judge on the basis of a certificate issued by the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) u/s 5(7) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not maintainable. 3. The facts which have given rise to this revision are briefly put as below: The revisionist is an employee of the State Police Department. He made a reference to the Public Service Tribunal as he was aggrieved against the order of suspension passed by the Superintendent of Police concerned. The reference was allowed and the Tribunal was pleased to modify the order of suspension by deleting the following portion of the order: The period of suspension will not count towards leave, promotion and pension, for the period of suspension will not draw any more allowance than that he was drawing as subsistance allowance. The Tribunal further directed the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit to pass a fresh order regarding balance of salary and allowances for the suspension period after giving notice according to Rule under FR 54-B which should be done within two months of the receipt of the judgment, failing which it was directed that the Petitioner shall be entitled to full salary and allowances for the suspension period. 4. The Learned Counsel for the revisionist has fairly conceded that the order passed by the Tribunal was in the nature of the declaration u/s 5(6) of the Act. It so appears that the directions of the Tribunal were not complied with by the Superintendent of police, Pilibhit and so the revisionist applied for the certificate u/s 5(7) of the Act and moved the District Judge for execution of the certificate as a decree. Objections were filed on behalf of the State. The District Judge has been pleased to allow it and hence this revision. 5. As stated above, admittedly the order of the Tribunal in favour of the revisionist is in the nature of a declaration as contemplated u/s 5(6) of the Act. Objections were filed on behalf of the State. The District Judge has been pleased to allow it and hence this revision. 5. As stated above, admittedly the order of the Tribunal in favour of the revisionist is in the nature of a declaration as contemplated u/s 5(6) of the Act. No certificate is to be issued by the Tribunal regarding the order of declaration passed by it under Sub-clause (6) of Section 5 of the Act. The certificate is to be issued only in the cases where the Tribunal makes the order other than one u/s 5(6) of the Act. In the instant case as the order of the Tribunal was u/s 5(6) of the Act, so neither the Tribunal could issue a certificate for its execution nor the Civil Court could execute such an order of delegation passed by the Tribunal. Sub-clause (6) and (7) of Section 5 of the Act read as below: (6) A declaration made by the Tribunal shall be binding on the claimant and his employer as well as on any other public servant who had, in respect of any claim affecting his interest adversely, been given an opportunity of making a representation against it, and shall have the same effect as a declaration made by a court of law. (7) Where the Tribunal makes any other order in favour of the claimant and against his employer or any other public servant, and such order remains in complied with for a period of three months, the Tribunal may, on his application, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount awarded, or as the case may be, for other relief granted by it, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may apply to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he has for the time being serving or last served such employer, for execution of the order of the Tribunal, and such court shall thereupon execute the certificate or causes of the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if ii were a decree for like relief made by itself in a suit. A mere reading of this section leaves no room for doubt that a certificate under Sub-Clause (7) of Section 5 of the Act is to be issued on where the Tribunal makes any other order, meaning thereby any order other than one under Sub-clause (6) of Section 5 of the Act, quoted above. In the result the learned District Judge was perfectly within his jurisdiction in refusing the execution of a certificate of the Tribunal in execution of an order passed by it u/s 5(6) of the Act. The revision, therefore, has got no force and shall be dismissed. 6. The revision is dismissed.