F. A. KHAN vs THE REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Etc.
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent dismissal of the petitioner's execution application by the executing court, the Additional District Judge, Lahore, and the Lahore High Court. The petitioner sought to execute a declaratory decree declaring his 1950 dismissal from service illegal, specifically praying for the recovery of arrears of salary and allowances. The core legal question was whether a declaratory decree that does not incorporate consequential relief for monetary recovery can be executed for the recovery of arrears of salary. The Supreme Court held that the executing courts rightly refused the request since the relief prayed for did not form part of the decree passed in the petitioner's favour. The key principle laid down is that an executing court cannot look beyond the decree or grant relief not expressly incorporated therein, though government departments are expected to honour and implement judicial declarations regarding illegal dismissals in good faith.
- Whether a declaratory decree regarding the illegality of a dismissal from service can be executed for the recovery of arrears of salary and allowances when such relief is not part of the decree?
- Can an executing court grant monetary relief that was not expressly incorporated in the decree sought to be executed?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The petitioner sought to execute the decree passed in his favour by which the order of dismissal from service dated 15-8-1950 was declared as illegal and ultra vires. The executing Court rejected the executing application on the ground that the declaratory decree could not be executed. Petitioner's prayer for execution of the decree for the purpose of recovery of arrears of his salary and allowances was also refused. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore and his second appeal was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court and he now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner who argued in person submits that the respondents have neither re-instated him in service nor have they paid any salary and allowance due to him and he is at least entitled to the payment of the arrears of salary and allowances.
3. Petitioner's grievance, as a layman, does not seem to be without substance, but what he prays for is not the part of the decree passed in his favour and no fault can be found with the Courts in refusing his request.
4. We, however, cannot help observing that it was for the Government in the concerned Department to take notice of the decision of the Court of law particularly when the appeal filed by the Government against the judgment and decree passed in petitioner's suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Lahore and the second appeal to the Lahore High Court also met with same fate.
5. This petition, however, has no force and is dismissed in limine.