JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed :- A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 (Annex.6) passed by the Execution court (Civil Judge), Sangaria Dist Hanumangarh in execution proceedings no 04/2004 namely Badri Nath vs. Swami Keshawanand Mahavidlya may kindly be quashed and execution proceedings may kindly be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the respondent was appointed as Lab Assistant in the petitioner institution and while the dispute of selection grades was being adjudicated under an appeal filed under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989, the favourable order was passed in favour of the respondent on 6.12.2000. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has opposed the execution petition and the order passed by the executing Court only on the ground that necessary benefits have been given to the private respondent in accordance with the circular Annex.2 dated 22.4.2008, the relevant portion reads as under :- ^^2- p;fur osrueku %& xSj ljdkjh vuqnkfur egkfo|ky; ds v'kS{kf.kd (Non-Teaching) deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkfj;ksa ds leku gh p;fur osrueku dk ykHk foRr foHkkx ds vkns’k Øekad i- 10¼2½ foRr fu;e@1998 fnukad 17-2-98 ¼le;≤ ij la’kksf/kr½ ds iSjk 5 ,oa mDr vkns’k esa of.kZr ‘krksZa@izko/kkuksa ds v/;/khu fu;fer fu;qfDr ds i'pkr 9] 18 ,oa 27 o”kkasZa dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij Øe’k% izFke] f}rh;] ,oa r`rh; p;fur osrueku ns; gksaxsA mDr p;fur osrueku dk uxn ykHk fnukad 28-05-02 ls fn;k tkosxkA mDr ifjykHk jktLFkku xSj ljdkjh ‘kSf{kd laLFkk vf/kfu;e 1989 ,oa rRlaca/kh fu;e 1993 ds izko/kkukuqlkj ns; gkasxsA** 3.1. Counsel for the petitioner states that this circular has been upheld by various judgments and, therefore, the petitioner is required to grant all the benefits to the private respondent only in accordance with the circular dated 22.4.2008 i.e. actual benefits from 28.5.2002. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that this circular has been upheld by various judgments and, therefore, the petitioner is required to grant all the benefits to the private respondent only in accordance with the circular dated 22.4.2008 i.e. actual benefits from 28.5.2002. 4. Counsel for the respondent submits that the order under execution was passed on 6.12.2000 and subsequently, the petitioner failed to get the order reversed in subsequent litigation and thus, the order dated 6.12.2000 has attained finality and since the order dated 6.12.2000 has attained finality, therefore, the executing Court was right in ordering the benefits in accordance with the initial circular dated 25.1.1992 which was in vogue at the time the order dated 6.12.2000 was passed in favour of the respondent. 5. Upon hearing the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the executing Court has very limited power and cannot go into the merits of the case beyond a point. On the face of it, it is clear from perusing the record that the order under execution is dated 6.12.2000 and, therefore, the notification issued on 22.4.2008 and adjudicated subsequently by different Courts cannot be given a retrospective effect while executing the earlier order. 6. In light of the observations made, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner, however, undertakes that compliance shall be made by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, therefore, the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. may be dropped. 8. Since the counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that compliance shall be done within a period of two months from today, therefore, the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be dropped against the petitioner. It is made clear that the executing Court shall be empowered to re-initiate the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in case of the petitioner not making compliance as per the undertaking within the period aforesaid. It is needless to say that selection grades shall be paid in accordance with the circular dated 25.1.1992.