JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, said to be a Non-Government Educational Institution at Sujangarh, District Churu, seeks to question the order dated 9.2.2011. as passed by the civil judge (Junior Division), Sujangarh rejecting the objections against execution of an order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal') on 5.6.1999. 2. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that late Shri Lalchand, an employee of the petitioner-institution who retired on 31.1.1996, moved an application under section 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Act, 1989 before the tribunal stating grievance against denial of the requisite pay scale, gratuity, provident fund etc. After hearing the parties and after due consideration the matter , the Tribunal proceeded to pass the following order in favour of the employees on 5.6.1999:- " vr% izkFkhZ Jh yky pUn oekZ dk vkosnu i= fuEu izdkj Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS& vizkFkhZ la0 1 ih0,Q0 dh C;kt jkf'k izkFkhZ dks 16]852@& dh vnk;xh djsA vizkFkhZ la0 1 izkFkhZ dks vUrfje jkgr dh izFke fd'r fnukad 16-9-1993 ls vizSy 1995 rd ds :0 2]000@& tks izkFkhZ ds uke jk"V~h; cpr i= esa fofu;ksftr fd;s x;s gS] dks izkFkhZ dks lkSaisA blds vfrfjDr vUrfje jkgr dh nwljh fd'r vizSy 1995 ls tuojh 1996 rd :0 2]150@& dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr djsaA vizkFkhZ la0 1 izkFkhZ dks osrueku 1989 esa osruLFkjhdj.k djus ds i'pkr~ cdk;k osru dh jkf'k flrEcj 1988 ls ekpZ 1990 dk Hkh Hkqxrku djsA vizkFkhZ la0 1 izkFkhZ dks jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k fnukad 23-1-1985 ,oa fnukad 25-1-1992 ds vuqlj.k esa fu;ekuqlkj p;fur osrueku dk ykHk iznku djs vkSj mldk osru fu;ru dj vUrj dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fu;ekuqlkj djsA vizkFkhZ la0 1 izkFkhZ dks " isesaV vkWQ xszP;qVh ,DV 1972 " esa ;Fkk vuqKs; nj ls xszP;qVh dk Hkqxrku djs vkSj ftl frfFk ls xsP;qVh ns; gqbZ gS] ml frfFk ls Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd izkFkhZ dks 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt vnk djsaA vizkFkhZ la0 2 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og mijksDr vkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u vizkFkhZ la0 1 }kjk fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA " 3. It appears that the employees Shri Lalchand expired sometime late in the year 1999. His wife, sons and daughters (respondents Nos. It appears that the employees Shri Lalchand expired sometime late in the year 1999. His wife, sons and daughters (respondents Nos. 3/1 to 3/5 herein) filed an execution application before the civil Court with the submissions that the amount of gratuity and difference of salary together with interest remained due against the petitioner-Institution. in this execution application,it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-institution that late Shri Lalchand moved an application on 5.10.1999 to the institution seeking payment and thereafter, on 16.11.1999, he did receive the savings certificate, interest on provident fund, second instalment of interim relief, and the amount payable according to the pay fixation. However, according to the petitioner-institution, Late Shri Lalchand executed a receipt on 16.11.1999 and voluntarily waived the amount of Rs. 1,06,173/- towards gratuity. It was submitted that the applicants were not entitled to get the decree executed in relation to the said amount of gratuity for the same having been given up and waived by Late Shri Lalchand. The objection petition so made was put to contest by the applicants while refuting against the assertions made by the petitioner about waiver of the amount of gratuity by Late Shri Lalchand. 4. The Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sujangarh, after through consideration of the matter and with reference to the provisions of Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure, observed that the judgment -debtor never made any application before the court about payment/adjustment after the alleged receipt dated 16.11.1999 until filing of the execution application. The Learnedjudge also referred to the fact that in his application dated 5.10.1999, Late Shri Lalchand had demanded all his dues towards CPF interest, savings certificate, interim relief, pay fixation, and so also gratuity. The learned judge observed that when even a small amount of Rs. 2,252/- was claimed, it was rather unacceptable in the natural course of things that the employee would have been up the substantial amount of Rs. 1,06,173/- towards gratuity. The learned judge observed that when even a small amount of Rs. 2,252/- was claimed, it was rather unacceptable in the natural course of things that the employee would have been up the substantial amount of Rs. 1,06,173/- towards gratuity. The learned judge also found that the so-called receipt dated 16.11.1999 was allegedly drawn on a plain paper and not carrying even a revenue stamp.The learned judge also referred to the fact that other receipt were duly counter-signed by the Chairperson of the institution with his seal but no such authentication was available on the alleged receipt showing waiver of the gratuity amount.Thus,after finding the suggestion of the petitioner entirely unbelievable and the objection unacceptable, the learned judge rejected the same and directed further proceeding in the execution case. 5. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, it is contended that the employee having voluntarily abandoned his claim with regard to gratuity and having not filed any execution, his heirs were not entitled to seek recovery of this amount of gratuity. It is submitted that the learned execution Court has disbelieved the document without any rhyme or reason; and only on surmises and conjectures. 6. Having examined the material placed on record, this court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 9.2.2011 so as to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. On the contrary, the stand as taken on behalf of the petitioner-institution can only be said to be baseless and unjustified. 7. In the first place, this court is not at all convinced that there could be any contracting out of the legal right of an employee particularly that relating to the amount of gratuity and more particularly when the same had already cry-stalized in to decree of the court. The considerations that prevailed with the learned civil judge though have been assailed by the petitioner as being of surmises and conjectures but, in the opinion of this court,appear to be of logical inference. The employee Late Shri Lalchand had a decree in his favour that was passed after thorough contest of the matter and then, admittedly, by the letter dated 5.10.1999, he demanded payment of all the amount payable under the decree. In the given up the substantial amount of gratuity on 16.11.1999? The employee Late Shri Lalchand had a decree in his favour that was passed after thorough contest of the matter and then, admittedly, by the letter dated 5.10.1999, he demanded payment of all the amount payable under the decree. In the given up the substantial amount of gratuity on 16.11.1999? Nothing of any corresponding fact or factor is available an record where for it could be believed that the employee would have abandoned his dues towards gratuity. As aforesaid, a blanket contracting out of such a legal right towards gratuity can neither be accepted nor countenanced. 8. Apart from the above, even if for the sake of arguments such a suggestion about the employee having waived the amount of gratuity is taken into consideration, this court finds justified the observations of the learned executing court particularly with reference to principles underlying Rule 2 Order 21 of the code of civil procedure that reads as under:- "2. Payment out of court to decree-holder:- (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of court, or a decree of kind is otherwise adjusted in whole or in part to the satisfactions of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the court whose duty it is to executed the decree, and the court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment-debtor or any person who has became surety for the judgment-debtor also may inform the court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to be fixed by the court, why such payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified; and if, after service of such notice, the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment or adjustment should not be recorded as certified, the court shall record the same accordingly. (2-A) No payment or adjustment shall be recorded at the instance of the judgment-debtor unless- (a) the paymentis made in the manner, provided in rule 1; or (b) the payment or adjustment is proved by documentary evidence; or (c) the payment or adjustment is admitted by, or behalf of, the decree-holder in his reply to the notice given under sub-rule(2)of rule 1, or before the court. (3) A payment or adjustment, which has not been certified or recorded as aforesaid, shall not be recognised by any court executed the decree." 9. If at all there had been any satisfaction of the decree by adjustment or otherwise, it was necessary that the petitioner institution stated the same to the court and got it recorded accordingly. The institution having failed to do so, avoidance of the obligation only when the heirs of the late employee sought execution, could have only been, and has rightly been, rejected per sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 Order 21 C.P.C. Thus the learned civil judge (junior Division), Sujangarh cannot be faulted in rejecting the baseless objections of the petitioner. 10. The writ petition fails and is,therefore,dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the civil judge (Junior Division), Sujangarh, District Churu immediately who shall ensure proper execution of the decree without further delay.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******