Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

Sheela Tripathi v. State of Rajasthan

1990-08-10

N.K.JAIN

body1990
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.1987 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur in execution case No. 30/83. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner, who was a teacher in the Education Department, was removed from service on 29.10.1966, without any enquiry according to law. She was also not paid the salary for the months of September and October, 1966. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Director, Education for Rajasthan. However, the same was rejected on 4.11.1966. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government but as the same remained undecided upto end of December, 1969 the petitioner filed a suit on 2.1.1970 before the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, praying inter alia that the order terminating her services be declared illegal, void and arrears of salary upto the date of suit be paid to her. 3. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 13.7.1974, declared the order dated 29.10.1966 as illegal, void and ineffective. It was further directed that she was entitled to have only one half pay from 3.9.1966 to 29.10.1966, unless the defendant sanction the leave to her nor such period in view of the rule 80 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and after 29.10.1966, the plaintiff was entitled to full salary as if she was on duty. 4. On appeal filed by the State, the learned Appellate court dismissed the appeal on 28.5.1980 and the decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The second appeal filed by the State was also rejected on 6.1.1981. The plaintiff-petitioner was allowed to join her duty on 15.4.1981. 5. The petitioner filed an execution petition and claimed salary upto 15.4.1981. The State paid salary upto 2.1.1970 i.e. the date of the suit. In execution, an objection has been raised by the Judgment-debtor-State that the Decree-holder is entitled to salary only upto the date of the suit. The Decree-holder filed reply to this objection and Executing Court by its order dated 21.11.1987, allowed the objection raised by the non-petitioner. 6. On appeal, the learned civil Judge partially allowed the objection and ordered that the petitioner-Decree Holder would be entitled to salary upto 13.4.1974. 7. The Decree-holder filed reply to this objection and Executing Court by its order dated 21.11.1987, allowed the objection raised by the non-petitioner. 6. On appeal, the learned civil Judge partially allowed the objection and ordered that the petitioner-Decree Holder would be entitled to salary upto 13.4.1974. 7. Hence, the Decree Holder-petitioner has filed the present revision petition, alleging that despite success of the petitioner in the trial Court, she has been denied emolument beyond the dateof decree and has not been paid any salary from 13.3.1974 to 15.4.1981 and therefore, she is entitled to get salary from 13.3.1974 to 15.4.1981, as the order terminating the services of the petitioner has been declared illegal, void and ineffective and she has been reinstated. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Government Advocate and also carefully gone through the record. The focus of this case are not disputed and petitioner was reinstated in service on 15.4.1981. It is clear that once a termination is set aside and suit for declaration is decreed, the decree-holder is entitled for recovery of emoluments which necessarily flows from the quashing of the termination order and the grant of declaratory decree. 9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on : The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The State of Maharashtra, 1977(2) SCC 288 , Adhyaksha Bihar Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh and Ors. 9. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on : The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The State of Maharashtra, 1977(2) SCC 288 , Adhyaksha Bihar Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh and Ors. v. Ram Bilash Sharma, 1985(2) SLR 146 and State of Punjab v. Krishan Mohan, 1980(1) SLR 222 and invited my attention to the following observation of the full Bench decision in Radha Ram v. M.C. Barnala and Ors., 1983(1) SLR 151-158 : "Whether a decree of Civil Court declaring the order of dismissal of a public servant as void and illegal and treating him to be still in service can be construed as enjoining upon the Government to reinstate the decree-holder and grant him all benefits and privileges, including his past and future emoluments ?" After a discussion of principles and precedents the answer thereto was rendered in the following terms : "After careful consideration of matter, in the light of the judgments referred to above I am of the opinion that a decree of civil Court declaring the order of dismissal of a public servant as void and illegal and treating him to be still in service is construed as enjoining upon the Government to reinstate the decree-holder and grant him all benefits and privileges, including the past and future emoluments. Such a decree will entitle the Government Servant concerned to claim the necessary reliefs from the Government and in case of the failure of the Government to grant those reliefs, to file suit or other legal proceedings to enforce the rights given to him by the declaratory decree." 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of State of Punjab v. Krishan Mohan Sarvia wherein it was observed as under : "Heard, counsel for the parties. This application is disposed of on a short ground. 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 Feb., 1974. 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 Feb., 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." 11. An order reinstating an employee or holding that he continues to be in service is executable in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Murari Lal Sahegal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1233 . The relevant order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court deserves to be reproduced herein below : "In the result both the judgments of the High Court are set aside and the judgments and decrees of the Subordinate-Judge 1st Class, Patiala, stand restored." 12. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishan Lal Sahegal v. State of Punjab (supra) as referred to above, that where a declaration decree is passed then the consequence of this declaration is to be implemented. As the consequential relief follows automatically from such declaration, therefore, it is not necessary to seek it as separate relief. 13. No other point has been raised before me in this case. 14. In the result, I allow this revision petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur on 21.11.1987 and direct that petitioner is entitled to salary upto 15.4.1981 instead of 13.3.1974, which is the natural consequence of a declaratory decree. I further direct the non-petitioner to pay the balance of salary upto 15.4.1981 within a period of three months from the date of this order. 15. There will be no order as to costs in this revision petition.Petition allowed. *******