Gurcharan Singh v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CR No.1365 of 2014 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1365 of 2014 Date of decision:28.03.2016 Gurcharan Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. S.K.Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present revision is against the impugned order dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure P-9), vide which the Executing Court has declined to revive the pending execution proceedings. Mr. S.K.Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that while disposing of Regular Second Appeal bearing No.4421 of 2011, a direction was issued to consider and decide the representation, in case, the petitioner choose to file and the same has been disposed of and therefore, right accrued for revival of the execution petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that execution application was confined to the judgment and decree, therefore, separate cause of action has accrued in pursuance to the directions contained in the SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.04.05 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.1365 of 2014 {2} order dated 08.04.2013 passed in RSA No.4421 of 2011 which reads thus:- "On scrutiny of the judgment delivered by the first appellate Court, it transpires that in the light of the fact that the plaintiff had filed representation to the effect that the period spent by him w.e.f. 09.11.1971 to 31.03.1975 at Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur be also counted for fixing his seniority during the period he remained in service but the same was not considered. Therefore, a direction is issued to decide his representation. However, it is made clear that from this it may not be inferred that the plaintiff is bound to be given the benefits of seniority, but the competent authority would consider and pass a speaking order as to whether the appellant's aforesaid period could be considered towards fixing his seniority."

I am of the view that since separate fresh order has been passed on 17.08.2013, whereas, in the aforesaid appeal, the order was passed on 08.04.2013, the remedy, if any, is to assail the aforementioned order and not to revive the execution petition. The impugned order is just, perfect and legal and therefore, no interference is warranted.

Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 28, 2016 savita SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.04.05 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh