JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. The present revision arises out of proceedings under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of U. P. Public Service (Tribunals) Act. 1976 (for short 'the Act') and is directed against the order dated 28.9.1993 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur.
2. It appears that respondent Kunwar Prahlad Singh Srivastava filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The claim petition was allowed and award was given in favour of the respondent by the Tribunal on 28.5.1990. The operative portion of the award as has been quoted in the impugned order reads as follows :
"The petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,449.15 paisa together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of this petition till the date of payment. The payment should be made within 3 months from today. The opposite parties are also directed to prepare a seniority list and to consider the matter of the promotion of the petitioner, as and when it falls. The petitioner will also get the cost of this petition assessed at Rs. 150".
3. Since according to respondent, the order passed by the Tribunal was not compiled with by the petitioners, he applied for grant of a certificate under Section 5 (7) of the Act. The Tribunal granted the certificate to the respondent on 10.12.90. The respondent consequently applied for execution of the said certificate under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act before the District Judge. Sultanpur. The execution case ultimately came to the file of the find Additional District Judge, Sultanpur. The case was contested by the applicants, who have pleaded that award of the Tribunal was already acted upon by them Inasmuch as the decretal amount was paid to the respondent and he was also given seniority and promotion. The execution case, according to the applicants, was. therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties considered the question as to whether the amount paid to the respondent/decree holder was short than actual decretal amount. After considering the material on the record, it was held as under :
"Thus, the total amount of the award, and towards interest and cost has been paid to the decree holder and the execution for these points 1 and 3 is, therefore, liable to be struck off."
5. Thereafter, the Court below considered the questions relating to fixation of seniority and fixation of the salary of the respondent. The Court below after perusing the material on the record held as follows :
"Therefore, the seniority has been rightly fixed by the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor/Basic Shiksha Adhikarf is directed to prepare the arrears of pay w.e.f. 28.11.77 minus the amount already paid. It is, however, made clear that decree holder will not get any amount of interest on the arrears of pay. Further the opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to consider about the promotion treating the decree holder to have received the selection grade w.e.f. 28.11.77 and the order dated 4.1.93 which has been filed as paper No. 30/3/C2 should be revised if at all the promotion of the decree holder in above terms is to be taken into account. The promotion has already been given to the decree holder, and now only notional promotion has to be given. The arrears has also to be given to him accordingly."
Having recorded the aforesaid finding, the Court below has directed the judgment debtors/applicants to submit the calculation memo by 22 October. 1993, by its Impugned order dated 23.9.93.
6. Learned standing counsel has vehemently urged that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in directing the Joint Director/Baste Shiksha Adhikari to prepare the arrears of pay with effect from 28.11.77 minus the amount already paid. It was also urged that the Court below has failed to appreciate the judgment and order dated 28.5.90 passed by the Tribunal, which was already compiled with and exceeded its jurisdiction to issue direction to the applicants.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kuniar Baldiha. Advocate appearing for the respondent supported the judgment and order passed by the Court below. It was urged that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, therefore, the revision was liable to be dismissed at this .stage,
8. The applicants have filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision to which an objection was filed by the contesting respondent. Although the revision was filed after inordinate delay of more than two years, however, in the interest of justice. I have condoned the delay and permitted the learned counsel for the parties to argue the matter on merits.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
10. So for as the payment of arrears of salary and interest thereon is concerned, the Court below has recorded clear and categorical finding that the decretal amount was already paid and respondent was not entitled to any Interest on the said amount. As the Execution Court cannot go behind the decree, the Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 28.5.90 clearly and specifically directed that according to the Government Order dated 29.12.1991, the petitioner was entitled to selection grade from 28.11.77 and not from 1.7.1979. The said date was fixed after detailed calculation made by the Tribunal which is contained in calculation memo which forms part of the record and was marked as Annexure-A-I. Thus, the submission made by the learned standing counsel that the respondent was not entitled to selection grade with effect from 28.11.1977 cannot be accepted. Learned standing counsel utterly failed to point out any mistake in the calculation memo referred to above, therefore, the submission made by him that selection grade cannot be given with effect from 28.11.77 cannot be accepted. Similarly the submission made by the learned standing counsel that the decree/award having been complied with therefore the execution case was liable to be dismissed cannot be accepted inasmuch as the arrears of pay of the respondent were although paid but other directions given by the Tribunal in its award/ order dated 28.5.90 were not complied with, therefore, the Court below has rightly directed the judgment debtors to comply with the order/award of the Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Act.
11. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. This revision fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.