DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE AND ANOTHER Vs. NARAYANA BHAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(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 The civil revision -petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn, however making it clear that the management of the school was entitled to reimbursement from the Government the whole of the amount paid or payable to the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.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate Sri Huleppa Heroor appearing for the petitioners contends that the order placing decree -holder under suspension issued by the Managing Committee was not passed with prior approval. Likewise, the order dismissing the decree -holder from services was also not passed with the prior approval of the authorities. In these circumstances, the State Government is not liable to pay the backwages as the management is solely responsible to bear the said burden. In this regard, he invites the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Rule 47(a)(i) of the Grant -in -Aid Code and Rule 22 of the Karnataka Education Institutions (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Education Institutions) Rules, 1999. He thus contends that no claim for payment of salary or arrears of the same can be made against the State Government. It is his next contention that the petitioners herein were not made parties in the proceedings before the Tribunal in Misc. A. No. 2/1990 and, therefore, they cannot be made liable only because of certain observations made by this Court in CRP No. 3306/1993. He lastly contended that as per the order passed in CRP this Court has directed reimbursement in the light of the law laid down in the case of Shivaji High School v. Prabhakar Jotiba Bamane (ILR 1985 Kant 3979) which would only mean that the management has to first pay the amount and seek for reimbursement from the State Government whereupon the claim will be considered in accordance with law and reimbursement would be ordered if only the management is entitled for the same.