The absence of the management and the direction in a previous judgment made the State Government liable to pay the arrears of salary, but the management's contravention of mandatory requirements could disentitle it from claiming reimbursement.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 29-1-2005 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal), Mangalore, in Execution Case Nos. 6/1998 and 8/2000. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has held that the State Government is liable to pay the arrears of salary to the decree-holder-respondent No. 1 herein and a direction is issued to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the Block Education Officer, Puttur, the petitioners before this Court to take immediate steps to arrange and pay the arrears of salary in terms of the decree passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2/1980. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the decree-holder within three months from the date of the order (20-1-2005) by making arrangements for special grants from the Government.

2. Few facts which are essential for the disposal of the case may be set out as under :

The 1st respondent-Narayan Bhat, hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder was the Head Master of Sri Seetharaghava Higher Primary School, Pernaje, Puttur Taluk. the management of the said school was under the control of the 2nd respondent-Board of management. The decree-holder was kept under suspension with effect from 1-6-1974. After enquiry into the charges of misconduct, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was challenged by the decree-holder in Misc. Appeal No. 2/1990 before the Tribunal, Mangalore. The said appeal was allowed on 27-4-1993 directing reinstatement of the decree-holder in service forthwith, with a further direction to pay the full salary from 1-6-1974 onwards till the date of his reinstatement and for continued payment of regular pay and allowances till he attained the age of superannuation. This order was challenged by the judgment-debtor management in C.R.P. No. 3306/1993 before this Court. The civil revision-petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn, however making it clear that the management of the school was entitled to reimbursement from the Government the whole of the amount paid or payable to the decree-holder as per the order passed by the Tribunal. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Dakshina Kannada-petitioner No. 1 herein was impleaded as a party-respondent in the Revision Petition and the contention taken up by him stating that there was no liability on the part of the State Government for payment of arrears of pay to the decree-holder as per the judgment and award made in Misc. Appeal No. 2/1990 was repelled. The petitioner decree-holder has sought to execute the judgment and decree. He has made certain attempt in the execution petition to proceed against the members of the Managing Committee of the School. Later on the petitioners herein were sought to be impleaded as parties in the Execution Petition. They filed objections contending that they are not liable to pay the amount as they were not parties before the Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 2/1990. They also contended that as the penalty of dismissal was imposed by the then management without the prior approval of the authorities, the Government was not liable to pay the back wages. Having regard to the objections raised by the petitioners, the Executing Court has framed an issue as to whether the office-bearers of the Board of Management were personally liable to pay the arrears of salary and whether the State Government is liable to reimburse the arrears of salary on behalf of the Board of Management.

3. Having regard to the order passed in CRP No. 3306/1993 and after considering the objections raised by the petitioners herein, the Executing Court has held that the State Government was liable to pay the arrears of salary to the decree-holder and that there was no personal liability of the office-bearers of the Board of Management for payment of arrears of salary, in the facts of the case. The petitioners who are the officers of the State Government are aggrieved by this order of the Executing Court and