JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Judgment-debtor (JD) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Executing Court thereby holding the respondent – decree holder (DH) to be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. 2. Suit filed by the respondent against petitioner was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.1996 (Annexure P-1/A) holding the petitioner to be entitled to back log promotion w.e.f. 01.01.1985 as per policy dated 12.03.1987 of the petitioner along with consequential benefits. In execution proceedings, the DH, besides claiming the consequential benefits of higher scale, also claimed interest on the amount of consequential benefits. The Executing Court has accepted the said plea of the DH by granting interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court namely State of Punjab and others vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma reported as 1990 AIR (SC) 2177, contended that since no interest was claimed in the suit nor interest was granted in the judgment and decree, the Executing Court could not grant interest in execution proceedings. On the other hand, counsel for respondent DH, relying on judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Punjab vs. Radha Ram and another reported as 1990 (2) SLR 588, contended that even Executing Court can grant interest in such a situation. 5. I have carefully considered the matter. 6. Judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Ram (supra) does support the contention of respondent DH. However, the said judgment cannot be followed in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Dayal Sharma (supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically laid down in the said judgment that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to grant interest when interest has not been granted in the judgment and decree. In the case of Krishan Dayal Sharma (supra) also, suit of the employee had been decreed regarding his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. Facts of the said case are almost identical with the facts of the instant case. 7. In the case of Krishan Dayal Sharma (supra) also, suit of the employee had been decreed regarding his promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. Facts of the said case are almost identical with the facts of the instant case. 7. Resultantly, it is held that the Executing Court could not have granted interest when interest has not been granted in the judgment and decree. Impugned order of the Executing Court, therefore, suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. As a necessary consequence, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.09.2012, passed by the Executing Court, holding the respondent DH to be entitled to interest and directing the petitioner JD to pay interest, is set aside. Claim of respondent DH regarding interest is rejected. ----------------