ORDER By consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the writ petition is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this order. 2. This writ petition by the State of Karnataka is directed against the order dated 2-9-2006 (Annexure-D) passed in Execution Petition No. 616 of 2004. The execution petition was filed to execute the judgment dated 13-8-2003 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belgaum ("EAT" for short) in KP.E.I. Appeal No. 1 of 1995. Grievance of the petitioner is that in the absence of any liability fixed on it in the aforesaid judgment to pay the amount due to deceased Sri Mallikarjuna Shivalingayya Hiremath who was working as Head Master with respondent 2-Institution, to Executing Court has erred in law in making the petitioner also liable to pay the amount. However, this submission is contested by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination is as to whether any liability is fixed on the petitioner-State of Karnataka to pay the amount due to the aforesaid deceased Mallikarjuna Shivalingayya Hiremath under the judgment dated 13-8-2003 passed by the EAT? 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate specifically invited my attention to the following observations made by the Educational Appellate Tribunal at para 26 of its judgment which read as under: "26. ...... As already discussed above, there are indications to show that for the relevant period, the management has received grant from the Education Department also. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that primarily the management is responsible for the emoluments for which the appellant is entitled and they may seek for reimbursement of the same from the Government in the event of they are not provided with the required grant......". 5. A perusal of the aforesaid observations would clearly indicate that respondent 2 herein has to first pay the amount due under the judgment and after making the payment, it is at liberty to seek for reimbursement from the State Government if the required grant was not provided to it. Hence, the impugned order fixing the liability on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I make the following order: The impugned order dated 2-9-2006 insofar as it relates to making the petitioner also liable to pay the amount of Rs. 8,01,640/- is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Hence, the impugned order fixing the liability on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I make the following order: The impugned order dated 2-9-2006 insofar as it relates to making the petitioner also liable to pay the amount of Rs. 8,01,640/- is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of disposal of the writ petition, Misc. W. Nos. 60197 of 2010 and 61508 of 2009 also stand disposed of Petition disposed of.