Judgment : D.K. Seth 1. THE petitioner's husband was declared a deserter with effect from 2nd September, 1971 during the operation in 1971 when in fact the Indian Army had supported the Bangla Desh Liberation. Against the said order of declaration, the deserter, the petitioner had filed a suit. THE said suit was decreed on 21st July, 1980. THE learned trial court, while decreeing the suit after analysing the evidence, has come to a finding that the petitioner's husband had died on duty during the operation when he was being airlifted for being dropped in Bangla Desh for participation in the liberation war of Bangla Desh. which is admittedly a war like condition inasmuch as Bangla Desh was liberated ultimately in December, 1971 which fact is not disputed. THE petitioner's husband as it appears from the evidence of his own soldiers that he was in the midst of the battle and he was sent to fight the battle and that the petitioner's husband had fought the battle on two occasions earlier and he was a brave fighter and he was not a soldier who would desert. Upon such finding, the said suit was decreed declaring that the petitioner's husband had died while on duty. THE appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the decree dated 15th May, 1981. THE judgment and decree, therefore, became final. THE decree having been put into execution, the Union of India had paid all the benefits available to the husband of the petitioner which were normally available. Subsequently the petitioner claimed special benefits arising out of the Government Order No. 200847/Pen-C/71, dated 24th February, 1972 on the ground that the petitioner's husband had died while fighting in war like operations or border skirmishes either with Pakistan on the cease-fire line or any other country as provided in clause (iij (a) of the said Government Order. THE learned trial Court by order dated 27th March, 1984 had held that the decree has been fully satisfied and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefit. Upon a revision being preferred, by order dated 4th February, 1985, the revisional court came to a finding that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. THE learned trial Court by order dated 27th March, 1984 had held that the decree has been fully satisfied and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefit. Upon a revision being preferred, by order dated 4th February, 1985, the revisional court came to a finding that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. THE decree having been in the form of a declaration that petitioner's husband had died on duty and the same not being a declaration that the petitioner's husband had died in war like operation or border skirmishes, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the special benefit arising out of the said Government Order. It is against these two orders dated 27th March, 1984 passed by the learned Munsif, Etah in Execution Case No. 228 of 1981 arising out of the decree passed in Suit No. 35 of 1979 of the same Court and the order dated 4th February, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, IVth Court, Etah in Civil Revision No. 33 of 1984, the present petition had been moved. 2. ON the prayer of Mr. Shashi Nandan, leave is granted to amend the . petition so as to convert it into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Shashi Nandan, in support of the petition, contends that the decree has been passed pursuant to the judgment in the suit. Therefore, the decree is to be read alongwith the judgment and the expression "died on duty" is to be construed with reference to the finding from the judgment itself. Therefore, while granting benefit of the said Government Order, it is not a case of modifying the decree itself and, therefore, it is not a case where the Court is required to go behind the decree. On these grounds, he has assailed the impugned orders. 3. MR. R. C. Shukla, Standing Counsel, contends that since the decree was only a declaration that the petitioner's husband had died on duty, therefore, it cannot be said by the executing court that he had died in war like condition which would amount to modification of the decree which the executing court cannot do. The petitioner had accepted all the benefits paid to him in execution of the decree which has fully been satisfied and, therefore, the second execution does not lie. On these grounds, he is opposing the petition. 4. The petitioner had accepted all the benefits paid to him in execution of the decree which has fully been satisfied and, therefore, the second execution does not lie. On these grounds, he is opposing the petition. 4. THE said Government Order lays down that all soldiers died in operation against Pakistan commencing from 3rd December, 1971 would be entitled to the special benefits. THE said special benefit would also be admissible in the categories of personnel killed in action or disabled on account of injuries sustained as mentioned in different clauses in the said Government Order. Clause (ii) (a) includes death as a result of fighting in war like operations or border skirmishes either with Pakistan on the cease-fire line or any other country. A reading of the said provision shows that the clauses have a sweeping effect almost on all kinds of death during operations. THE scope is rendered very wide. The decree was coined in the form of a declaration that the petitioner's husband had died while on duty. Every decree is to be executed. It is the duty of the executing court to see that the decree is fully executed. The executing court has jurisdiction to interpret the decree as it stands. A decree has to conform to the judgment. If there is any inconformity, in that event, the decree either can be corrected under Section 152, C.P.C. if occasion so necessitates or it can be interpreted if it is so capable of in terms of the judgment. The decree and judgment ought to be reconciled so as to have a proper and effective implementation of the decree as is understood upon reading of the judgment and decree together. 5. ADMITTEDLY, the trial court had arrived at a finding upon analysing evidence that the petitioner's husband had died during a war like operation in the border of East Pakistan, now Bangla Desh after liberation. East Pakistan was part of Pakistan and was known as the State of Pakistan and was not a separate State. ADMITTEDLY, though war was declared against Pakistan in December, 1971 but war like operations were going on in the border of East Pakistan out of which Bangla Desh was liberated. East Pakistan was part of Pakistan and was known as the State of Pakistan and was not a separate State. ADMITTEDLY, though war was declared against Pakistan in December, 1971 but war like operations were going on in the border of East Pakistan out of which Bangla Desh was liberated. This fact was not denied and cannot be denied because of the finding of the trial court where it was found that troops were being airlifted for being dropped in Pakistan and in such operation, the petitioner was found missing and was declared a deserter which has since been converted to a position of petitioner's husband being killed in operation. Though the decree has not been happily coined because of the reason that the concerned Government Order was not before the Court. It may be a case of loose drafting which cannot render any benefit to the judgment-debtor ineffective. The decree is to be construed on the basis of the judgment itself which in no uncertain terms had found that the petitioner's husband had died during operations which was declared to be as a death on duty. A duty is a genus while operation is specie. Death in operation is also a death during duty. Since the trial court had found that the.death took place in the course of operation, therefore, it cannot be denied that the petitioner's husband had been killed in operation. It is also an admitted position that the operation was nothing other than war like operation, 6. ADMITTEDLY, it is very difficult to recover the deadbody if the soldier is killed in an operation particularly like the one which was undertaken in 1971 in relation to the liberation of Bangla Desh. When the Court has found that the petitioner's husband had died in the operation, the benefit goes to the person killed. It is also found that the petitioner was a brave soldier who would never desert as has been stated by his co-soldiers. Therefore, it cannot be said that while executing the decree and granting special benefits out of the said Government Order, the executing court would be modifying the decree or would be going behind the decree and would be giving something more than what has been decreed. Therefore, it cannot be said that while executing the decree and granting special benefits out of the said Government Order, the executing court would be modifying the decree or would be going behind the decree and would be giving something more than what has been decreed. The executing court is well within its jurisdiction to interpret the decree on the basis of the judgment and give the benefit of the said Government Order in case the person is so eligible. 7. APPARENTLY, the petitioner's husband had fought a brave fight and had laid his life for the country, in order to get the benefit on his death to the members of his family who became destitute on account of his being killed for whom he had adopted such a dangerous profession and they ought to have been given the benefit even without the intervention of the judiciary. The destitute widow and the children were made to fight for their livelihood and in such a situation the departed soul would not live in peace who had laid his life though for a greater cause, but primarily for earning livelihood for himself and his dependents. The said Government Order has been promulgated to honour the bravery of those soldiers so that they may die in peace while fighting war knowing that their family would not become destitute and would be well looked after and his bravery would be rewarded. 8. IN that view of the matter, it does not appear that the learned trial court and the revisional court had acted well within their jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is apparent that both the courts below had failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them and had acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the prayer of the petitioner. Since a long time has passed, no useful purpose would be served in sending the case back. I, therefore, order the learned trial court to execute the decree in terms of the concerned Government Order referred to above holding that the petitioner is entitled to the special benefit on account of the death of his husband in war like operation. It is expected that the Union of India shall comply with the decree sought to be executed in the light of the observation made above. In the result, the application succeeds and is allowed. It is expected that the Union of India shall comply with the decree sought to be executed in the light of the observation made above. In the result, the application succeeds and is allowed. There will be no, order as to costs.