S.S. Sodhi, J.@mdashThe matter here concerns the execution of a declaratory decree granted in favour of Rohini Kumar. On October 19, 1981,
Rohini Kumar filed a suit for declaration that be was entitled to seniority in the clerical cadre of the Transport Department of the State of Punjab
with effect from September 20, 1961 and all consequential benefits acting therefrom. The Suit was dismissed on July 31, 1982, but, was decreed
on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar Shri M. S. Sehmee on September 4, 1984. The second appeal filed against this judgment and
decree was later dismissed by (his Court.
2. It, was sometime thereafter that Rohini Kumar filed a petition u/s 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the decree passed in his favour
was not being implemented by the Director, State Transport, Chandigarh.
3. The trial court dismissed this application under the Contempt of Courts Act holding that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner-Rohini
Kumar had been fully implemented as the decree granted (o him was with regard to his seniority in the cadre of clerks and not seniority and
promotion to the post of Assistant and therefore, there was no violation of the decree by the Director.
4. Further, it was held that as regards consequential benefits, the petitioner had failed to show that precisely these were. It was stated in this behalf
that only a vague figure of Rs. 39,000/- by way of arrears had been mentioned, but the petitioner had failed to show by way of any calculations
how he was entitled to this sum.
5. Besides seeking to challenge this order in revision, in this Court, the petitioner Rohini Kumar also filed another suit on July 17, 1987 seeking a
declaration that he was senior to Tarsem Kumar. Consequential benefits were also claimed. This suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner-Rohini
Kumar on February 10, 1988, whereby, it was held that he was senior to Tarsem Kumar and was entitled to promotion as Assistant from the date
when the said Tarsem Kumar was promoted, namely; November 1, 1966 and further that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits of
pay and allowances. This decree was up-held in appeal, both by the lower appellate court as also by this Court in Regular Second Appeal.
6. Later, when Rohini Kumar took out, execution of this subsequent decree, an objection was raised on behalf of the State of Punjab that the
decree being merely a declaratory decree was not executable This plea was, however, negatived by the executing court, by its impugned order of
August 24, 1988.
7. The law is well-settled that once a declaratory decree has been passed in favour of an employee holding that he continues to be in service, he
can realise all the arrears of pay due to him in execution of the decree. It has been so held by the Full Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh Sidhu
and Ors. v. The Panjab University, Chandigarh (1983) 85 P.L.R. 46 which was later followed in Ram Sarup Bhalla v. The State Punjab 1985 (1)
S.L.R. 433 and Darshaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana 1987 (4) S.L.R. 503 No exception can thus be taken to the impugned order of the
executing court holding the decree obtained by the petitioner-Rohini Kumar, to be executable.
8. As regards the application filed by Rohini Kumar, under the Contempt of Courts Act, this is clearly rendered infructuous by the subsequent
decree obtained by the petitioner and the relief claimed being cover by it.
9. In the result, the application under the Contempt of Courts Act is hereby dismissed as infructuous while the impugned order holding the decree
to be executable is up-held and affirmed. Both the revision petitions are dispossed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs,
