BADAVARA BALLAGA GANDHI ASHRAMA Vs. N GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an educational institution. It has filed this revision petition against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C. P. C. , over ruling the objections by it and directing payment of the amount claimed in the execution case by the respondent.

(2.) THE execution case is filed by the respondent to execute the judgment and award dated 27. 10. 1988 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in MA. (EAT) No. 22/86. In the execution case the respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 3,63,192/- towards arrears of salary consequent upon her reinstatement pursuant to the Award. The claim was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was appointed temporarily on a consolidated salary of Rs. 200/- which was raised to Rs. 250/- per month ; that her appointment was not approved by the Government and hence she cannot claim the salary on par with the permanent employees. The petitioner also filed an application for impleading the Director of Public Instruction as petitioner being aided institution, the salary is being drawn from the Government and hence the proposed respondent was a necessary and proper party. The executing court rejected the application and over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner. That made the petitioner to file this revision petition.

(3.) MR. H. Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Rule 5 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions Rules, 1978 has no application to the present case. He relied upon the decisions reported in A. I. R. 1990 SC 415, A. I. R. 1987 SC 111, A. I. R. 2001 SC 2836 and A. I. R. 2002 SC 1313. According to Mr. Jois, the rejection of impleading application was not proper as the petitioner being an aided institution, the amount, if any, payable to the respondent should be paid from the amount drawn under grant-in-aid.