Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On 01St October vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 1 October, 2024

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

2024:HHC:9679-DB


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                                SHIMLA
                                 CWP No. 5227 of 2021
                                 Decided on 01st October, 2024
Rangila Ram
                                                      ...Petitioner
                         Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                    ...Respondents
Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
    Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner:         Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
                     Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

CMP No.17757 of 2024

For the reasons stated in the application, present

application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and

the main case is ordered to be listed for final consideration

today itself.

CWP No.5227 of 2021

2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being

disposed of today itself.

2024:HHC:9679-DB

3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

"A. That the impugned Office Order dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. That appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant-in-aid since the time of his appointment and also the respondent may be directed to disburse the grant-in-aid to him from the date of his initial appointment till date @ 9% per annum."

4. The case of the petitioner is that after completion of

his 10+2, has done his Bachelor in Physical Education, in the

year 2002. This was followed by issuance of advertisement for

filling the post of Physical Education Teacher through PTA

School Management Committee. Pursuant to a resolution dated

05.07.2011 passed by the School Management Committee of

Government GHS Reyur, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi,

H.P., the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.3 vide

resolution dated 05.07.2011, as a Physical Education Teacher,

in the said school. As per the petitioner, he continues to serve

in the said school till date. His grievance is that he has not been

paid Grant-in-Aid though persons who similarly situated as the

2024:HHC:9679-DB

petitioner, who also have been appointed through School

Management Committee, are being paid the Grant-in-Aid.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the act of the Department of not releasing Grant-in-Aid in

favour of the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eyes of law for

the reason that when the petitioner is performing the work of a

Physical Education Teacher in a Government School, then, it is

both arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the respondents

to deny her Grant-in-Aid. Learned Counsel also submitted that

the issue otherwise is no more res integra and the petitioner is

entitled to the relief being prayed for in the light of the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in

CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled Villam Singh

versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on

07.04.2016, SLP filed against which judgment by the State

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was dismissed.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General, by drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed,

has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Physical

Education Teacher by the School Management Committee, by

2024:HHC:9679-DB

passing a simple resolution, till the joining of a regular teacher

out of the SMC fund and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled

for any Grant-in-Aid. He further submitted that as the

appointment of the petitioner was without compliance to the

formalities as are envisaged in the SMC policy, therefore also,

the petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and

also learned Additional Advocate General and also gone

through the pleadings as well as the documents appended

thereto.

7. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was

appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in GHS Reyur,

Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., on 05.07.2011 by the

School Management Committee of the School. It is also a

matter of record that the School where the petitioner was

engaged by the School Management Committee happens to be

a Government School. That being the case, when the

respondent-Department did not object to the appointment of the

petitioner as a Physical Education Teacher in the Government

School by the School Management Committee, denial of

2024:HHC:9679-DB

benefit to the petitioner, as are being claimed by her by way of

present writ petition, is completely arbitrary and discriminatory.

This Court fails to understand as to how a Teacher like the

petitioner, who actually has imparted education in a

Government School to the students and as this Court stands

informed, the students who have been taught by him have

passed out successfully from the said School, can be denied

the benefit of Grant-in-Aid, on the reasons assigned in the

reply. If the reasoning given therein is accepted by this Court,

then, this Court would be giving premium to the act of the

respondents of exploiting persons like the petitioner, who on

account of lack of transparency in the system of recruitment of

Teachers to Government Schools, are being forced to impart

education to students, taking advantage of their unemployment,

at meager salaries. The distinction which has been carved by

the respondents in Villam Singh's case vis-à-vis the petitioner

that Villam Singh was engaged when SMC Policy to engage

Teachers was not in vogue, is without any rationale, because if

the Department felt that appointment of the petitioner was bad,

then, it was duty bound to have had immediately terminated the

2024:HHC:9679-DB

services of the petitioner. This, admittedly, was not done by the

Department. The Department acquiesced to the appointment of

the petitioner by the School Management Committee by not

calling upon the Principal concerned to terminate the services

of the petitioner. It permitted the petitioner to impart education

to the students admitted in the School, one academic year after

another academic year. In the light of said act of the

Department, now it does not lie in the eyes of the Department

to deny the benefit of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this

petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the

petitioner Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of

his appointment. Needful be done within a period of eight

weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

October 01, 2024 (Vinod)

DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA,

BHUPENDE Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8 f8a66ab97285dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7

R KUMAR bd5fa9b09937769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMAR Reason: I am approving this document with my legally binding signature Location: