Honble AGRAWAL, CJ. - This revision has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the judgement of the Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur-City, Jaipur dated 5.03.1993 rejecting the objection of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2). Sohan Lal was employed in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. His services were terminated against which, suit was filed for declaration that the termination was invalid. The suit was decreed on 27th Feb. 1991 and the following decree was passed : "In the result, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of declaration is decreed and it is hereby declared that the orders thereby terminating the service of the plaintiff dated 21.9.1978 are illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and are hereby quashed. The plaintiff is entitled to have all the monetary benefits in the same way as if he was in service." (3) In the suit, six issues were framed including in respect of jurisdiction. The Suit was decreed as stated above and consequent upon the decree, Sohan Lal moved an application for execution. (4). To the execution, an objection was filed by the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure asserting that Sohan Lal was not entitled to the salary for the period after termination, inasmuch as, he ceased to be an employee of the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation thereafter. The Contention further was that the decree being only for declaration that the order of termination was invalid, the respondent-Sohan Lal on the plea of obtaining consequential relief, was not entitled to payment of salary for the period after termination. (5). The objection was over ruled by the executing court, against which the present revision has been filed. (6). The declaration granted by the court below was that the termination order was invalid As a result whereof, the termination became illegal, void and ineffective. The consequence of rendering termination order as invalid was that it was never passed. The respondent-Sohan Lal, as a result whereof, contented in the Court below as well as before this Court that he would be deemed to be continuing. (7). The decree for declaration had to be considered as the court announcing the legal consequences of the facts found. The consequence of rendering termination order as invalid was that it was never passed. The respondent-Sohan Lal, as a result whereof, contented in the Court below as well as before this Court that he would be deemed to be continuing. (7). The decree for declaration had to be considered as the court announcing the legal consequences of the facts found. (8) In State of Kerala vs. T.P. Roshana (1), the Supreme Court held that the power of the High Court to grant consequential relief meant to do complete justice between the parties. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Burma Construction Co. vs. State of Orissa (2) in connection with the claim for refund of tax illegally realized. (9). It is true that Burma Construction Co. vs. State of Orissa (supra) was in a different context than with which we are concerned in the present case The distinguishing feature further can also be that this revision involves the interpretation of a declaratory decree granted in a civil suit holding that the services had been illegally terminated. (10). So far as this controversy is concerned, there are a number of decisions of this Court. Amongst them R.S.R.T.C. vs. Mohan Lal Khandelwal (3) is one of them. (11). In this case, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the declaratory decree passed declaring termination as null and void and further conferring right to such a Government servant to consequential benefits entitled him to get the salary of the past period. For the view taken, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Krishna Murari Lal Sehgal vs. State of Punjab (4) and the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court report in Prakash Chand vs. S.S. Garewal (5). (12). The Supreme Court observed in the decision noted above: — "As a logical consequences 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." (13). A number of other decisions had also been noticed, considered and followed by the learned Single Judge. (14). Mr. The only way in which the judgment of this Court can be implemented is to pay the aforesaid amount of salary to the petitioner." (13). A number of other decisions had also been noticed, considered and followed by the learned Single Judge. (14). Mr. P.C. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to distinguish the said decision on the ground that recently, the Supreme Court has expressed doubt about the maintainability of the suit for recovery of money in the civil court by a dismissed employee of the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation. If the Supreme Court takes the view that such a suit for recovery of money is not maintainable, the decree will become ineffective and an employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation cannot recover the money on its basis even though the termination order is found invalid. (15). In this case, the petitioners had taken the plea of jurisdiction in the suit itself and that plea was decided against them. Having been decided by the civil court that the suit was maintainable, it is not open to raise this plea again in execution. In some other cases, which are listed alongwith this revision, it is possible that the plea of jurisdiction was not raised in the Civil Court, but that will not in any way alter the position as the executing court cannot go behind the decree. (16). Following the decisions, cited at the bar, it appears to me that the only view possible is that the declaration granted that the termination was invalid, will entitled the person getting the same to salary also. (17). Recently, in O.P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Others (6), the question arose whether an employee, who had been terminated by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., was entitled to post wages or salary. The Supreme Court did not specifically deal with this question, but reading the judgement as a whole, it appears that the what the appellant-O.P. Bhandari was entitled to was his salary payable from the date of termination till reinstatement. (18). In this connection, I may also, make a mention of the claim for promotion made by the respondents. Promotion is not gained or obtained by a Government servant as of right. There is no entitlement of getting promotion. What an employee is entitled to is only to consideration for promotion when it becomes due. (18). In this connection, I may also, make a mention of the claim for promotion made by the respondents. Promotion is not gained or obtained by a Government servant as of right. There is no entitlement of getting promotion. What an employee is entitled to is only to consideration for promotion when it becomes due. The Government servant, in such a case, under the garb of consequential relief, could not be entitled to get the promotion or the salary of the promoted post. He will get the salary which he was getting on the date of termination. (19). For the reasons given above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. No. costs.