Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 402 of 1992 Revisionist :- Hari Shanker Shukla Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Tarun Bhattachariya,Bharat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Samir Sharma,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Case called out in the revised list. None has appeared for the opposite party.
The instant revision is directed against the order dated 31.03.1993 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Execution Case No.6 of 1990.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the decree sought to be executed directed reinstatement of the decree holder-revisionist with full pay and allowances from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement.
The contention of counsel for the revisionist is that the pay for the period from 01.08.1973 to 31.08.1973 was payable to the decree holder as he had applied for medical leave during the period. There is nothing on record to show that the medical leave was not sanctioned.
The revisionist is also entitled to earned leave for a period of 48 days as also night allowance and good conduct allowance and the burden to show that the revisionist was entitled to the same has wrongly been cast upon the revisionist. In fact, it was for the judgement debtor to show that the revisionist was not entitled to such allowances, despite the decree. Therefore, the order impugned is vitiated.
Counsel appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C. has supported the impugned order.
Upon consideration of submission made and upon a perusal of the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the executing court has clearly mis-directed itself.
The decree in favour of the revisionist provided for his reinstatement with full pay and all admissible allowances. In case, demands were made regarding there allowances, it was for the judgment debtor to show as to why the allowances claimed were not payable to the revisionist. Therefore, the onus has wrongly been cast upon the revisionist.
For the same reason, the order impugned, in my considered opinion is not liable to be sustained.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 31.03.1992 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the executing court to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made here-in-above. This exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Jitendra Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2019.02.28 10:03:37 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad