JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This revision petition has been filed for modifying the order dated 12.4.1991, Annexure P-5 passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh (Executing Court) to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to compound interest @ 12% per annum to be calculated on the decretal amount for the period from 29.5.1981 to 20.7.1991. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that Shri R.S. Ahlawat (deceased), Assistant Education Officer, whose services were terminated by the respondents without following the rules, made a representation before the then Cooperative Minister, Haryana for the withdrawal of the illegal termination order dated 29.5,1981 for his reinstatement. The Cooperative Minister passed the following order : "Considered and decided that the applicant be taken back in service with all service benefits including pay etc. The termination order as prayed by the applicant be withdrawn". 3. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana declared the order dated 29.5.1981 passed by respondent No. 1 as null and void and, therefore, order of terminating the services of the petitioner became illegal. Petitioner was reinstated in service, but was not given the benefit of past service. He filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that order No. EST/E83/2799-2803 dated 10.1.1983 debarring the petitioner from the benefits of his past service is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary to the well settled law. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh vide order dated 12.9.1986 and it was ordered that plaintiff is entitled to get all the benefits of his past service with effect from 29.8.1981. Therefore, respondent No. 2, after a period of about 4 months, passed the following order :- "In pursuance of the decision of the Court the Board of Directors of Harcofed at its meeting held on 24.11.1986 has decided to allow the benefit of service to Sh. R.S. Ahalawat, A.C.E.O. Therefore, he is allowed service benefit w.e.f. 29.5.1981, but no arrears of termination period shall be paid". 4. The petitioner filed Execution application, so that he may get decretal amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on delayed payment of his dues from the respondents. The Learned Executing Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it cannot go behind the decree and moreover it has no power to grant interest. It has not been granted in the decree. 5. The Learned Executing Court dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it cannot go behind the decree and moreover it has no power to grant interest. It has not been granted in the decree. 5. Shri. S.K. Lamba, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed that he is entitled to all benefits of past service, but the Learned Executing Court erroneously held that petitioner is not entitled for interest. He contended that the petitioner was deprived of his salary, which was due to him legally. He further submitted that even though the Court which passed the decree has not allowed the interest, the Executing Court has the power to grant interest. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on The State of Punjab v. Radha Ram and another 1990(20) SLR 588. 7. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on V.P. Gautama, IAS (Retired) v. Union of India and others, 1983(2) SLR 346. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the facts of V.P. Gautamas case do not have any relevancy with the facts of the case in hand. 9. On the other hand, Shri L.N. Verma, counsel for the respondents submitted that the Executing Court has no power to grant the interest as the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. He submitted that this proposition has been settled by the Apex Court. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma, AIR 1990, SC 2177, Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of UP and another, AIR 1997 SC 410 and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Shri. Chandu and others, (1998-2)119 PLR 798. 10. After hearing, Learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Admittedly the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide order dated 12.9.1986 and order terminating his services was declared illegal, unconstitutional against the Punjab Civil Services Rules and natural justice. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, the decree for declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that the order No. EST/E83/2799-2803 dated 10.1.1983 is illegal, unconstitutional against the Punjab Civil Services Rules and natural justice. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :- "In view of my findings on the foregoing issues, the decree for declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants that the order No. EST/E83/2799-2803 dated 10.1.1983 is illegal, unconstitutional against the Punjab Civil Services Rules and natural justice. The plaintiff is entitled to get all the benefits of his past service with effect from 29.5.1981". 12. The Learned Sub-Judge has not decreed the suit alongwith interest. It is settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In State of Punjab & others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court held : "No doubt the Courts have power to award interest on the arrears of salary or pension or other amount to which a Government servant is found entitled having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but that power cannot be exercised by the Executing Court in the absence of any direction in the decree." 13. Similarly the Apex Court in Rameshwar Das Gupta (supra) held as under :- "It is well settled legal position that an executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with procedure laid down under Order 21, Civil Procedure Code." 14. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce case (supra) held as under : "The Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it is and it has no jurisdiction to modify or vary the decree unless it is shown that the decree is without jurisdiction or is otherwise void or not capable of being executed." 15. The Division Bench of this Court in case of The State of Punjab and another v. Inspector Som Nath and another, (1992-2)102 PLR 654, over-ruled the decision of Radha Rams case and held as under : "In the light of this authoritative pronouncement, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision rendered in State of Punjab v. Radha Ram and another, 1989(2) RSJ 595 cannot be sustained and the same is over-ruled. The view taken in Civil Revision No. 558 of 1989 (State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh) decided on April, 5, 1989 and Civil Revision No. 944 of 1987 (Dr. The view taken in Civil Revision No. 558 of 1989 (State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh) decided on April, 5, 1989 and Civil Revision No. 944 of 1987 (Dr. K.G. Chowdhri v. The State of Haryana) decided on July 25, 1988 is affirmed." 16. In view of the above judicial precedents, the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The order passed by the Sub-Judge 1st Class is legal one. 17. The claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained on other ground because Shri. S.K. Lamba, counsel for the petitioner made a statement on 20.7.1991 before the Executing Court that he had received cheque No. 328820 dated 7.6.1991 drawn on the Haryana State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 24380.07 in favour or Indu Ahalawat, wife of the Decreeholder as full and final settlement of the decretal amount. The Execution application may be dismissed as withdrawn as fully satisfied. 18. On the statement of the counsel for the petitioner, the execution application was dismissed as withdrawn. 19. Once the execution application has been dismissed as fully satisfied, the petitioner is debarred by his act and conduct to claim the interest. 20. For the reasons recorded above, revision petition is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.