IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 226 CR-5658-2017 Date of Decision.:16.07.2025 Ram Kishan Yadav …..Pe--oner Vs. U0er Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the peoner. Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by learned Execung Court in execuon case tled as “Ram Kishan Yadav vs. UHBVN and others”, whereby his execuon has been dismissed as sasfied. 2. Suit filed by the plainff/decree-holder (peoner herein) against the defendants/judgment-debtors (respondents herein) was decreed on 03.04.2012 and the following relief was granted: “In view of my findings on the above issues, present suit succeeds and is hereby partly decreed. A decree for declaraon to the effect that the plainff is entled to an amount of Rs. 7,000- towards compulsory Deposit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his rerement ll realizaon, and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 10,177/- from 10.10.2002 ll 11.07.2008 on amount of Rs. 1,25,339/ from 01.05. ll 04.04.2004 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5658-2017 and the plain ff is also en tled to ACP No. 1 and ACP No. 2 w.e.f. 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001, is passed in favour of the plain ff and against the defendants. The defendants are directed to make the payment of Decree sheet be referred above. prepared. File be consigned to the record room a2er interest as due compliance.” 3. Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by first Appellate Court on 21.01.2013. SAO No.63 of 2013 filed by respondents against judgment dated 21.01.2013 of the Appellate Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.07.2014 and no further appeal was filed. It is thus the admi>ed posion that the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012 has a>ained finality. 4. Some of the benefits have been released to the decree- holder/peoner as per the decree but his claim regarding 1st and 2nd ACP have been disputed on the ground that these were applicable only to the new entrants. The Execung Court accepted the objecons of the JDs in this regard by holding that the 1st ACP and 2nd ACP scales are applicable with effect from 01.01.1996 and not 01.01.1991 by way of impugned order dated 01.07.2017 and dismissed the execuon as sasfied. 5. Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel that Execung court could not go behind the decree. It is further pointed out that no such stand was taken by the respondents during pendency of the suit either before the trial Court or before the first Appellate Court to the effect that plainff was not entled for 1st ACP and 2nd ACP with effect from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 and therefore, no such objecon could be raised in the execuon. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order but could not convince this Court. 6. Having considered submissions of both the sides, this Court is NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5658-2017 of the view that impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not disputed by counsel for the respondents that no such stand was taken during pendency of the suit that plainff/decree-holder i.e. peoner herein was not entled for 1st ACP or 2nd ACP with effect from 22.10.1991 and 22.10.2001 respecvely. As such, the respondents could not raise any such objecon in the execuon. Once the said reliefs have been granted by the trial Court by way of judgment & decree dated 03.04.2012, which has a>ained finality, the Execung Court could not go behind the decree so as to decline the claim of the plainff/decree-holder in this regard. 7. As such, the present peon is accepted. The impugned order dated 01.07.2017 is hereby set aside. The concerned Execung Court is directed to restore the execuon in queson and proceed further with the same in accordance with law. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 16, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.17 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document