Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. versus LADULAL MALI

Decided
5 February 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 143 · 1996 INSC 187
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 143, margin F

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated March 18, 1994 made by the learned single Judge in Revision Petition No. 604 of 1993. The appellants had terminated the service of the respondent on December 7, 1983. On appeal, it was confirmed. When a suit was filed, the District Munsif by decree dated November 12, 1990, declared that the order of termination as well as the order of the appellate authority were illegal, void and against the principle of natural justice. The respondent had filed Execution petit~on No. 2'.91 ~or reinstatement. The executin~ Court dis~issed the E~ec~-1 lion Apphcatton on December 4, 1992 holdmg that suit of the plamhff against the respqndent is for declaration. Therefore, he is not entitled to the back-wages. On a revision filed, the High Court relying upon the decision of the High Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport C01pn. & Ors. v. Solian Lal, (S.B.C.R. No. 623/93) decided on 26th October, 1993 set aside the order of the executive Court and directed payment of the back-wages. Thus this appeal by special leave.

pp. 143–144, margin F

It is not in dispute that the decree does not contain payment of back-wages. Only declaratory relief has been g~anted. Shri Gaur, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that when the batch was disposed of by this Court on December 16,1994, this Court had directed payment of 40% of the back-wages. The respondent is accordingly entitled to the same relief. We find from the order of this Court that there is no such indication. It would appear that in some cases, there was a declaration to grant consequential monetary reliefs. In the batch when this Court had disposed of the matters obviously the relief of back-wages related to those cases. Consequently, this Cour_t limited payment of backwages to the extent of 40%. It is settled law that executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only a declaratory refo;f without any consequential payment of monetary benefits, the executing Court was right in refusing to grant the relief; The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in directing payment of back-wages.

p. 144, margin B

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No. costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 144, margin E