On The 31St Day Of August vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4234 HP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
                     ON THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                                  BEFORE




                                                            .
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR





     CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.7506 of
                                  2019.





    Between:-
    SAUJU RAM SON OF
    SH. SHYARU RAM, RESIDENT




    OF VILLAGE CHELI, P.O. KUNNU,
    TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
    H.P.


                                                  ....PETITIONER.
    (BY MR. JAI DEV THAKUR, ADVOCATE)



              AND




    1.     STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
           THROUGH          PRINCIPAL         SECRETARY





           ( EDUCATION)TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,





           SHIMLA-171002.
    2.     DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION,
           HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171003.
    3.     PRINCIPAL, GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY
           SCHOOL, PADHAR, TEHSIL PADHAR,
           DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
    4.     HEADMASTER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:58:50 :::CIS
                                    ...2...



        GAWAHAN, TEHSIL PADHAR,




                                                           .

        DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
                                                ....RESPONDENTS.





           (MR. HEMANT VAID, ADDITIONAL
           ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.





           VIKRANT CHANDEL, DY. A.G.)


               This petition coming on for hearing this day, the

    Court passed the following:-

                           JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner, as disclosed by Annexure A-4,

Annexure whereof, is a copy of a certificate issued by

Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Gawahan, District Mandi, H.P.,

worked as PET, at the afore school w.e.f. from 12 June, 2007

upto 2014. The respondents in their reply on affidavit, furnished

to the writ petition, contended that the petitioner purportedly

abandoned his duty in the year 2014. The learned counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner, however argues, that the

respondents be issued a mandamus for releasing the requisite

...3...

.

grant-in-aid to the school concerned, for enabling the latter to

release his salary, as, appertaining to the afore period. Moreover,

the learned counsel appearing of the writ petitioner, has also

contended, on the basis of Annexure A-9, wherein echoings

occur, for the re-engagement(s) of PTA provided teachers in the

before 31.12.2007.

r to school concerned, especially whose engagements occurred

He also argues that since the barring

thereto induction inasmuch as his being subjected to an inquiry

before the inquiry officer concerned, is not applicable to the

petitioner., therefore he be bestowed benefits thereof. The

learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, on basis of the

afore notification borne in Annexure A-9, argued that since, the

petitioner's services, as PET on a PTA basis, hence commenced

in the school concerned in the year 2007, inasmuch, as, 12 th

June, 2007, hence, his engagement in the afore capacity in the

school concerned, when was, before the cut off date prescribed in

Annexure P-9. Therefore, he argues that the respondents be

directed to re-engage him in service as PET in the school

concerned.

...4...

.

2. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner had earlier filed a

writ petition bearing CWP No. 6514 of 2014 before this Court,

and, this Court, upon, the writ petition (supra), had made

directions, upon the respondents to decide representation

Annexure A-5, within six weeks thereafter. In compliance

writ claim. to therewith, the respondents through Annexure A-7 declined the

Therefore, the writ petitioner through casting the

extant writ petition has made a challenge to Annexure A-7.

3. The reply on affidavit as meted to the writ petition by

the respondents, makes echoings, that the initial engagement of

the writ petitioner, as PET on a PTA basis, was without any

adherence being made to the relevant norms, inasmuch, as, the

norms appertaining to the apposite post being advertised, and,

thereafter interview being conducted, rather became breached..

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been

able to cotrovert the afore factum, as, borne in the reply on

affidavit, furnished by the respondents, to the writ petition. The

effect thereof, is that, since, the initial engagement of the writ

petitioner as PET in the school concerned, was in breach, of the

...5...

.

relevant norms, thereupon, the mandate carried in Annexure A-9

is not applicable, vis-a-vis, the writ petitioner.

4. Now adverting to the afore made submission by the

learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and, anchored upon

Annexure P-9, even the afore contention is not available, to be

addressed by him, as, the initial engagement in service of the

petitioner, was made in breach of the norms carried in the

apposite PTA policy. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled

to claim the benefit of Annexure P-9.

5. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits, that he was not permitted to rejoin his duties,

and, also controverts the contention reared in the reply, on

affidavit as furnished, by the respondent to the writ petition, that

the writ petitioner purportedly abandoned his services. However,

since, the initial engagement of the writ petitioner, was in gross

breach of the relevant norms (supra), thereupon, the factum of his

being retrenched, and, his purportedly abandoning his job, does

not have any requisite consequential effects.

...6...

.

6. Nonetheless, since, the writ petitioner worked in the

school concerned as PET on PTA basis, and, dehors the relevant

norms becoming not recoursed by the respondents concerned.

However, for the afore period of his service, he has to be meted

salary equivalent to the one as became meted to all those

persons, who performed

to similar work/service

respondents. The afore order will ensure that parity becomes r under the

meted inter se the writ petitioner along with the other regular

incumbents hence discharging their duties in a similar capacity, to

the petitioner, and, also would ensure that this Court mete(s)

compliance with the settled principle of equal pay for equal work,

as has been expostulated in a string of verdicts, and is meant for

ensuring non exploitation of workers at the hands of the

respondent employers.

7. Consequently, insofar, as, the disengagement of the

writ petitioner is concerned, this Court decline to grant him the

relief of re-engagement. However, the respondents are directed

to release pro rata grant-in-aid to the school concerned, for

ensuring that the petitioner, is, disbursed, salary at par with the

...7...

.

salaries disbursed to regular incumbents working in the school

concerned. The afore shall be done within four weeks from today.

With the afore observations, the writ petition is disposed of. In

case, any advertisement is issued seeking the engagement of

regular hand against the post concerned, the writ petitioner may

stand disposed of.

r to participate in the relevant process. All pending applications also

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

31st August, 2021.

(jai)