The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that an Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and award back wages when no such relief was granted by the Court in the judgment and decree being executed. The Court observed that the Executing Court had neither the authority to explain the decree nor the jurisdiction to travel beyond it.

Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi was hearing a writ petition filed by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Commandant, challenging the order passed by the Executing Court directing payment of back wages to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff, who was working as a Constable in CISF, was terminated from service on 02.03.1983. He thereafter filed a civil suit, which was decreed in his favour by the Civil Judge. The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree, following which the respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court, which was partly allowed. Thereafter, the respondent filed an execution application seeking back wages from the date of dismissal till his retirement.

The petitioner submitted that since no relief towards back wages was granted by the High Court in the second appeal, the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief in execution proceedings.

The Court noted that the judgment and decree passed by it in the second appeal nowhere stipulated that the respondent would be entitled to back wages. Rather, he was subjected to the punishment of placement at the lowest stage in the time scale of pay.

“Since the punishment imposed upon the respondent/plaintiff was specifically considered by this Court in the second appeal and the aforesaid modified penalty was imposed, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that this Court had upheld the grant of back wages made by the trial Court,” the Court remarked.

The Court further noted that the decree granted by the trial Court had been set aside by the first appellate Court and, thereafter, the High Court had considered the punishment in the second appeal and modified it. While the modified punishment granted monetary benefits to the respondent, no specific direction for payment of back wages was passed in his favour.

“… no back wages were granted by this Court in SA No.365/1996. Consequently, the Executing Court had neither the authority to explain the decree passed by this Court nor the jurisdiction to travel beyond the decree,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Executing Court is contrary to the settled principles of law. It therefore set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Executing Court and allowed the petition.

Case Title: Central Industrial Security Force Commandant KSTPP Korba v. Ram Karan Sharma [WP227 No. 163 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order