AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.—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. 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.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court namely State of Punjab and others Vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma,
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 State of Punjab
Vs. Radha Ram and Another, , contended that even Executing Court can grant interest in such a situation.
I have carefully considered the matter.
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. 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.