JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner institute has challenged the order dated 27.9.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, (South), Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent, Bhanwarlal submitted an application before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutional Tribunal, Jaipur (Tribunal, for short) on 27.02.2007 stating therein that on 31.10.1966 he was appointed as Class IV employee with the petitioner institute. He had retired from the post of Peon on 31.08.2006, after attaining the age of superannuation. According to him, although he did receive Rs. 92,928/- on 11.5.2007 as gratuity amount, received Rs. 1,97,502/- as provident fund on 13.10.2006, but the amount that he liable to be paid on the selection scale, and leave encashment is yet to be paid to him. 3. The petitioner institute filed the reply and claimed that the amount of gratuity and provident fund has already been paid to him. They further pleaded that the amount of selection scale and leave encashment to be paid by the Government. Therefore, the management is not liable to pay the same. 4. However, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 26.9.2011, the Tribunal directed the petitioner institute to fix the pay of the respondent as per the circular dated 25.1.1992, and pay the arrears with 6% interest. It was further directed to pay the remaining amount of gratuity after adjusting the amount already paid, to pay the encashment of paid leave, and to pay the remaining provident fund after adjusting the amount already paid to the respondent. However, as the petitioner institute did not act on the decree,the respondent filed an execution petition before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Ajmer. Instead of implementing the degree, the petitioner institute submitted an application under Section 47 CPC. However, the said application has been dismissed by order dated 27.9.2014. 5. Without entering into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner institute has admitted that the amount of selection scale, gratuity and the encashment for paid leave is yet to be paid to the respondent. He gives an undertaking before this Court that the said amount shall be paid by the petitioner institute by December 31, 2014. Without entering into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner institute has admitted that the amount of selection scale, gratuity and the encashment for paid leave is yet to be paid to the respondent. He gives an undertaking before this Court that the said amount shall be paid by the petitioner institute by December 31, 2014. However, there is some dispute as to whether any provident fund amount is still outstanding or not. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate is unjustified in concluding that the petitioner has not submitted any figures to show that the amount of provident fund which is being claimed by the respondent is incorrect one. However, according to the learned counsel, a complete statement had been made in para five of the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the said observation by the learned Magistrate is misplaced one. 6. Mr. D.P.Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that the amount mentioned for the selection scale, the gratuity, and for encashment of paid leave in the order dated 27.9.2014 is a correct amount. According to him, the respondent will be satisfied, if the said amount is paid alongwith the interest of 6% p.a., till the amount is paid by the petitioner institute to him. 7. Considering the undertaking given by the petitioner institute, considering the satisfaction expressed by the respondent, this Court grants the petitioner time till 31st December, 2014 to pay the amount of selection scale as Rs. 1,27,726/-, gratuity as Rs. 1,18,513/- and the encashment of paid leave as Rs. 1,00,892/- alongwith interest of 6% p.a. till the date of payment. 8. As far as amount of provident fund is concerned, the learned Magistrate is directed to re-decide the said issue keeping in mind the averments made in para five of the application filed the petitioner. For this limited purpose, his case is remanded back to the Magistrate. The Magistrate shall pass his order after hearing all the parties. The learned Magistrate shall hear both the parties only after ensuring that the petitioner institute has given the complete pass book of the provident fund to the respondent so that it will be absolutely clear to the respondent as to the amount deposited in the Provident Fund and the amount due to him.With these directions, this petition is disposed off.Petition disposed of. *******