ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the Educational Institution challenging the order passed by the Executing Court by which the Executing Court has come to the conclusion that the memo of calculation filed by the decree holder was found to be in consonance with the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) and was hence accepted and the judgment debtor was directed to deposit the amount. 2. The respondent is a party who appears in person. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.1993 passed by the Institution preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in EAT No.4/1993. 4. The order that was impugned in the appeal was an order by which annual increment granted to the respondent was withheld by way of a minor punishment and the respondent was to be treated as an Assistant Instructor as against his earlier designation Instructor. 5. The Tribunal, by an order dated 14.08.2003, held as follows: “The appeal is allowed. The impugned order under Ex.P1 dated 22-10-93 passed by the respondents be and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently the respondents are directed to reinstate the position of the appellant as the Instructor with monetary benefits as it stood immediately prior to 22-10-93 and he shall be paid all the monetary benefits he was entitled with effect from 22-10-93 including raising his special pay from 30% to 55% as it was raised in the case of other staff members.” 6. As could be seen from the said order, the Institution was directed to reinstate the respondent to his position of Instructor with monetary benefits as is stood prior to 1993 and he would required to be paid all the monetary benefits that he was entitled to with effect from 22.10.1993 including raising of his special pay from 30% to 55% as it had been raised in case of other staff members. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was reinstated as an Instructor and he has in fact admitted that he has resigned from that post also. 8. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was reinstated as an Instructor and he has in fact admitted that he has resigned from that post also. 8. However, according to the respondent herein, the second direction to pay all the monetary benefits that the respondent was entitled to from 22.10.1993 including the raising of his special pay from 30% to 55% has been flouted and he has not been paid all the benefits that was due to him under the judgment of the Tribunal. 9. The respondent contending that he was due in a sum of Rs.6,74,187/filed an Execution Petition. In the Execution Petition, the respondent filed a memo of calculation and the Institution filed a memo of calculation. The Executing Court on a comparison of two came to the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to claim Rs.6,74,187/. The Executing Court vide order dated 22.04.2017 directed the respondent to file a fresh memo of calculation by calculating the pay scale as per the directions given in paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Tribunal. 10. Pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2017, the respondent filed a statement contending that the memo of calculation submitted along with an explanatory note on 19.06.2013 was in consonance with the directions issued in paragraph 17 and therefore, the same was required to be accepted. 11. The Executing Court, on consideration of this memo of calculation, has passed the following order: “Heard arguments Perused the Calculation memo filed by DHr and the orders passed in this case. Since the calculation filed by the DHr is found to be in consonance with the order, hence it is accepted. JDr is directed to deposit the amount by 3/1/18 & DHr is at liberty to take steps for recovery of the said amount. Call on by 3/1/18.” 12. As could be seen from the above order, the Executing Court has not recorded a finding as to how the memo of calculation was found to be in consonance with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Executing Court also not taken into consideration the order dated 22.04.2017 passed by it in which it was held that the respondent was not entitled to claim Rs.6,74,187/. 13. The Executing Court also not taken into consideration the order dated 22.04.2017 passed by it in which it was held that the respondent was not entitled to claim Rs.6,74,187/. 13. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to extract paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Tribunal, which reads as under: “Much has been made by the appellant regarding his salary. It has been the contention of the respondents that appellant was bound by contract with the Institution regarding this salary and he could not have demanded for the scale of pay equal to that of a Government employee posted in the same place as that of appellant. The appellant was appointed with the Institution in 1985. He accepted the pay structure as per his appointment order. The Institution is not supported by Grant-In-Aid and thus this Court in appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act cannot direct the Institution to pay the appellant with the same salary which is paid to an Instructor appointed by the Government. But the Institution must be directed to pay the salary of appellant as per agreement and not less than what he was drawing immediately prior to Ex.P1.” 14. As could be seen from the above, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the respondent could not have demanded the scale of pay equal to that of an Instructor appointed by the Government. It has been held that the Institution had not been admitted to Grant-in-aid and the respondent was appointed to the Institution in the year 1985 and he had accepted the pay structure as per the appointment order and therefore, the Tribunal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act could not direct the Institution to pay the respondent the same salary that was been paid to an Instructor appointed by the Government. 15. The Tribunal, thus, clearly held that the Institution would have to pay salary of the respondent as per the Agreement and not less than what he was drawing immediately prior to the order of minor punishment imposed against him. It therefore follows that the entitlement of the respondent would be only to the salary that had been agreed to be paid to him and the Tribunal had clearly recorded that he would not be entitled to pay that an Instructor appointed by the Government could have received. 16. It therefore follows that the entitlement of the respondent would be only to the salary that had been agreed to be paid to him and the Tribunal had clearly recorded that he would not be entitled to pay that an Instructor appointed by the Government could have received. 16. In other words, the pay scale attached to the post of an Instructor in an Institution run by the Government cannot be the pay scale to which the respondent would be entitled even according to the judgment of the Tribunal. This judgment of the Tribunal, admittedly, has been accepted and has become final. 17. This Court, in order to resolve the dispute finally, had directed the Institution to submit a memo indicating the pay that was given to similarly placed employees after raising their special pay from 30% to 55% and the Institution was also directed to indicate the money that was paid to the respondent. 18. The Institution in compliance of the said order has filed a tabular column indicating the money that was paid to the respondent in comparison with the money paid to two other employees namely Qutubuddin M. and R.V.Pandith Ghoreman after their special pay was raised from 30% to 55%. The said tabular column is herewith reproduced for the sake of convenience: 19. As could be seen from the said tabular column, according to the Institution itself, the respondent, after raising the special pay from 30% to 55%, had been paid a sum of Rs.9,39,547/while the similarly placed employee R.V.Pandit had been paid a sum of Rs.9,79,638/, thereby indicating that the respondent had been paid a lesser amount in a sum of Rs.40,091/. Obviously, in view of the order of the Tribunal that the respondent was required to pay the special pay as had been paid to other employees, the Institution would be required to be pay the said sum of Rs.40,091/to the respondent. 20. However, the respondent – party-in-person disputed the said tabular column. His contention was that the Institution had adopted a pay scale which was different than the pay scale adopted to the post of an Instructor in a Government Institution. 21. The respondent was basically claiming that the monetary benefits that he was entitled was to be computed on the assumption that the respondent was entitled to a salary equivalent to an Instructor appointed to a Government Institution. 22. 21. The respondent was basically claiming that the monetary benefits that he was entitled was to be computed on the assumption that the respondent was entitled to a salary equivalent to an Instructor appointed to a Government Institution. 22. As noticed above, the Tribunal has recorded a clear and categorical finding that the respondent would not be entitled for the pay attached to the post of an Instructor appointed by the Government. Therefore, this claim of the respondent cannot be accepted. 23. Since the entire basis for the respondent’s claim emanates on the premise that he is entitled to Government pay scale, the memo of calculation filed on that basis cannot be accepted. 24. The Executing Court has not even considered this contention and by its cryptic order simply stated that the memo of calculation filed by the respondent herein was in consonance with the judgment of the Tribunal. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the Executing Court cannot be sustained. 25. As the institution has stated that the respondent has been paid the monetary benefits on the basis of the agreed pay structure, they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,091/to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. If the respondent were to still contend that he has not been paid the monetary benefits in accordance with the pay scale prescribed in the order of appointment issued to him, it is still open for him to file a fresh memo of calculation indicating the basis of his claim before the Executing Court. 27. It is, however, made clear that the respondent would not be entitled for payment of monetary benefits on the basis that he would be entitled to pay scale attached to the post of an Instructor in a Government Institution. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.