ORDER 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 The civil revision-petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn, however making it clear that the management of the school was entitled to reimbursement from the Government the whole of the amount paid or payable to the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. 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 The civil revision-petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn, however making it clear that the management of the school was entitled to reimbursement from the Government the whole of the amount paid or payable to the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 are thus before this Court. 4. The petitioners who are the officers of the State Government are aggrieved by this order of the Executing Court and are thus before this Court. 4. 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. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder-respondent No.1 has strongly contended that there is no private management in existence for managing the affairs of the school. Admittedly, the school is taken over and is administered by the authorities of the State Government. The decree-holder is not at fault. He has succeeded before the Tribunal and as also before this Court in the CRP, wherein it is ordered that the State is liable to reimburse the amount payable. Admittedly, the school is taken over and is administered by the authorities of the State Government. The decree-holder is not at fault. He has succeeded before the Tribunal and as also before this Court in the CRP, wherein it is ordered that the State is liable to reimburse the amount payable. It is his submission that the order passed by this Court in CRP makes it very clear that the management is entitled for reimbursement of the amount payable to the 1st respondent. The practice and procedure being that the management would submit the salary bill including the arrears if any duly countersigned by the officers concerned of the Department wherupon the amount will be paid to the employee. In the case on hand, the Head Master sent the bill under his signature with the counter-signature of the Block Education Officer and thereafter the amount was required to be paid to the decree-holder. The school is now managed by the Block Education Officer, with effect from February, 1999. The Special Officer who is appointed to administer the institution is in-charge and, therefore, it is the State Government which is required to make the payment. At any rate, he submits, that if the management had during its regime not complied with the requirements of taking prior approval either before suspending or dismissing the 1st respondent-decree-holder, the authorities ought to have resorted to penal action as provided under the provisions of S. 67 of the Karnataka Education Act which enables the State and its authorities to take over the management of such institution. Having not taken any coercive steps against the management, the petitioner-authorities cannot take advantage of their own omissions and lapses to deny the legitimate dues to which the decree-holder is entitled is what is contended. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the Tribunal in the Execution Case filed suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference by this Court? 7. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the Tribunal in the Execution Case filed suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference by this Court? 7. It is clear from the findings recorded based on the very assertions made by the State authorities in their statement of objections filed before the Executing Court, that all the members of the Board of Management have resigned since January, 1999 whereupon the Block Education Officer, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada was appointed as Pay Drawing and Disbursing Officer for payment of the salary of the employees of the institutions. This order has been passed on 15/19-7-1999. Therefore, what emerges is that there is no Board of Management for the purpose of running the institution. For all practical purposes the management of the institution is now vested with the officer of the Department. It is no doubt true that the primary liability to pay the salary and the arrears of salary to a teacher lies on the private management though it is admitted to aid. Government only reimburses the management the salary and arrears paid or payable. In the instant case, admitted facts would reveal that the management of the institution is no longer in existence. The Pay Drawing and Disbursing Officer is disbursing the entire payments and is looking after the management of the institution. In addition, it can be seen from the direction issued by this Court in CRP No. 3306/1993 that the management is held entitled to claim the arrears of salary payable to the decree-holder by way of advance grant from the Government or it can claim reimbursement if it pays the arrears. This conclusion arrived at is based on the judgment rendered in Shivaji High Schools case. In the wake of such a clear direction, the Executing Court was not in error in passing the impugned order stating that the arrears of salary to the decree-holder shall be paid by the petitioners herein by preparing the salary bill and securing the amount from the State Government is also seen from the facts of the case that though the school has been an aided institution, the Board of Management was an unregistered association consisting of some individual members. The institution has a building constructed on the property and has its own assets. In the absence of the duly constituted management incharge of the institution and in the wake of the affairs of the institution being managed and controlled by the Pay Disbursing Officer, viewed in the context of the order passed by this Court in CRP, it cannot be said that the Executing Court was in error in issuing the direction as per the impugned order. However, the Executing Court was in error in holding that no prior approval was necessary for placing the decree-holder under suspension and later on dismissing him from service. There is no finding recorded on this aspect by the Tribunal. In fact, the authorities were not parties before the E.A.T. The observations made in the C.R.P. also do not finally pronounce on this aspect. In this view of the matter and in the light of the fact that the management of the institution is not in existence, while holding that the peitioners are required to make the payment as directed by the Executing Court, it has to be held that the petitioners are at liberty to pass fresh orders regarding the entitlement of the management for reimbursement. If the management has contravened any mandatory requirement while suspending and dismissing the decree-holder disentitling it from claiming grant/reimbursement, the amount paid to the decree-holder shall be liable to be recovered from out of the assets of the institution. This, in my view will meet the ends of justice in the facts of the instant case. 8. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of giving 8 weeks time to the petitioners to pay the amount to which the decree-holder is entitled reserving right to them to pass appropriate orders and take consequent actions in accordance with law, as stated herein above. No costs. 9. Order accordingly.