JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This writ petition has been filed by U.P. State Electricity Board now become the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. praying inter alia as follows : (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction proceedings issued on 17.10.1998 (Annexure-6) to the writ petition. (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the Court below not to proceed further in execution case No. 2 of 1995, Y.K. Gupta v. U.P. State Electricity Board. (c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No. 3 the auction purchaser from taking possession of the office of the Chief Engineer, Electricity Distribution, Agra which has been put to auction. (d) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (e) award cost to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pramod Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has contended before this Court that an order in respect of service dispute was passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in claim Petition No. 165/F/IV-1981 (Y.K. Gupta v. U.P.S.E.B. and others). The operative part of the order is as follows : “The claim petition is allowed to the extent that the O.P.s are directed to determine the legitimate fitment of the petitioner; A.E. w.e.f. 1.9.69 and as Asst. R.E.w.e.f. 13.11.75 and fix seniority accordingly. The claim regarding special pay and other reliefs is rejected. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs.” 3. From the plain reading of the order, we find that the authority has been directed to determine the fitment of the petitioner and fix seniority accordingly. The other claim has been rejected. Therefore, according to us the order in the nature of declaration or a direction of the Tribunal which is under Section 5 (6) of the U.P. Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 Sub-Section 6 is as follows : “(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 has, 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.” 4. Surprisingly, we find that an execution application was filed in respect of the order and the Tribunal has passed an order in the nature of execution even to the extent of auctioning, the office of the Chief Engineer, Electricity Division Agra and the auction purchaser, who is present before the Court and supporting such order, has participated in the auction and deposited the entire sum to the State Government. The State Government is enjoying this sum upon receipt of the same. However, according to the petitioner, such property is still lying with the petitioner i.e. the Chief engineer of Electrical Division. 5. We are further surprised with such type of order and action on the part of the Tribunal. The auction purchaser has very much relied upon not only Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but also sub-Section 7 of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act which is quoted herein : “(7) The order of the Tribunal finally disposing of a reference shall be executed in the same manner in which any final order of the State Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in any appeal preferred or representation made by the claimant in connection with any matter relating to his employment to which the reference relates would have been executed.” 6. From the plain reading of Sub-Section 7 of the said Act, we find that execution under the Act is parallel to the execution of final order of the State Government in respect of the appeal or representation. 7. Nowhere, it has been held that the same is parallel to the Code of Civil Procedure. At the very inception in Section 5 of the Act, it has been provided that Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. 8. Even assuming there is violation of the order, there is power of the Tribunal to punish for contempt under Section 5-A of the Act. However, same has been added in the Act by the U.P. Act No. 7 of 1992. The present order is passed in 1991. 9. In any event, two things are categorically here. 8. Even assuming there is violation of the order, there is power of the Tribunal to punish for contempt under Section 5-A of the Act. However, same has been added in the Act by the U.P. Act No. 7 of 1992. The present order is passed in 1991. 9. In any event, two things are categorically here. Firstly in a declaratory relief no question of execution arises even in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, when the Tribunal directed the authority to determine the litigation, the Tribunal itself has not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, it can be at best be construed as declaratory relief as per Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Act. 10. Even assuming the question of execution arising out of any context, the same will be as good as disposal of appeal or representation by the State but not like an order to be passed by the Civil Court and the execution in connection thereto. Taking into account all aspects of the matter, we find that not only the order but the entire proceeding for execution as provided before the Tribunal is quashable in nature and hereby quashed. 11. As a result thereof, the auction purchaser is entitled to get back the money which has been deposited, being Rs. 7 Lac according to him, alongwith simple interest to be calculated till the date of refund of the same @ 12 % per annum, since the State cannot unjustly enrich itself and such refund will be made as expeditiously as possible not beyond the period of one month from this date. 12. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. No order is passed as to costs. Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. ————