Om Prakash-Vii, Member – J
1. This execution application has been filed for executing the order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2017 passed in O.A. No. 330/01227/2003 Mukund Lal Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others. The operative portion of order dated 13.10.2017 is extracted herein below:-
“24. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed and the chargesheet dated 08.11.2011 is quashed and set aside and in consequence, the impugned order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 25.08.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority are also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority (Respondent no. 4) for action in the matter as deemed appropriate under the provisions of the Rules. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits under the Rule”.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the execution application is that applicant filed OA No. 1227 of 2003, which was initially dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2010. Against the aforesaid order, applicant filed writ petition No. 10634 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.09.2015 with a direction to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law preferably within a period of 3 months. After hearing both the parties vide order dated 13.10.2017, the original application of the applicant has been allowed by this Tribunal and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to decide the case afresh. Respondents were also directed to provide consequential benefits to the applicant. In compliance of aforesaid order, the respondents passed an order dated 11.01.2018. By way of order dated 11.01.2018, the respondents have reinstated the services of the applicant from the date of dismissal till his retirement i.e. on 31.10.2003. Applicant has also been granted consequential benefits. In compliance of aforesaid order, respondents released the salary of the applicant and fixed his pension from 31.10.2013 but it has been fixed wrongly. Respondents have not provided the interest on the delayed payment of salary, pension and other benefits. Against the said benefits, applicant filed representations dated 20.07.2018, 18.07.2018 and 12.09.2018 before the respondents’ authority but it is still pending. Hence, applicant filed present execution application.
3. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2017, vide order dated 11.01.2018, applicant has been reinstated in service. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that applicant has unauthorizedly occupied the Railway Quarter NO. 6 (A) at Kerakat Station and Quarter No. T/3 (A) at Dobhi Station from 01.01.1991 to 31.10.1996, as such on the objection of the Audit Authority regarding unauthorized occupancy of Railway quarters, vide order dated 21.04.1998, the damage rent has been deducted from the dues of the applicant. It has also been submitted that the benefit of TA, NDA, family planning and uniform have been given to those employees who are in service. Since applicant has not performed the service from the date of removal till his reinstatement, the applicant is not entitled to get these benefits.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant reiterated the averments made in the execution application and further stated that the applicant has not been given ACM grade from 2005 to 2007, promotion grade of Rs. 40,000/- in the year 2010, travelling allowance, night allowance from 2003 to 2013, family planning allowance from 2003 to 2013, privilege pass, uniform benefit, yearly bonus from 2003 to 2013 and interest on delayed payment of salary and also other benefits.
5. We have heard Shri V.S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no compliance has been made whereas respondents have stated in the order dated 11.01.2018 that direction given by the Tribunal has been fully complied with. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that respondents have wrongly observed in the aforesaid order that applicant was in possession of railway quarters, hence, damage rent has been deducted from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that respondents have wrongly stated in the counter affidavit that applicant is not entitled for ACM grade from 2005 to 2007, promotion grade of Rs. 40,000/- in the year 2010, travelling allowance, night allowance from 2003 to 2013, family planning allowance from 2003 to 2013, privilege pass, uniform benefit, yearly bonus from 2003 to 2013 and interest on delayed payment of salary and also other benefits.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2017 has been complied with in letter and spirit. He further submitted that while considering the case of the applicant, it was found that applicant has occupied two railway quarters in different places since long time, thus, damage rent has been deducted from the arrears paid to the applicant. It has also been submitted that benefit of TA, NDA, family planning and uniform could not be given to the applicant as these benefits would be given to the employee, who is in service. Since applicant has not performed the service from the date of removal till his reinstatement, thus, the applicant is not entitled to get these benefits.
8. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
9. In the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, it is well settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree.
10. In the instant case, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service. Tribunal had also directed to give all consequential benefits to the applicant under the Rule. In compliance of said order the respondents have taken a decision in the matter and thereby complied with the order of the Tribunal. Employee concern was reinstated and arrears have been paid. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order of respondents and is of the view that the decision is not correct he may challenge the same in the proper proceedings. The executive court cannot go into the merit of the order. Various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are required consideration and adjudication which can only be done in the appropriate forum.
11. Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the reasons given therein, if the applicant is feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority and is of the view that the same is not in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal and certain kind of allowance etc. have not been paid then he has remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and for the said purpose remedy to him does not lie in this execution application because no specific direction has been given in the OA in this regard.
12. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and factual position of the case, the execution application is dismissed in full satisfaction. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
