Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1171 (HP)

BALKAR SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-12-02

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)-The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the State is liable to provide 95% grant-in-aid to the Public Senior Secondary School, Indpur, District Kangra, even in respect of the teachers employed for teaching +1 and +2 classes. 2. The undisputed facts are that the school (Public Senior Secondary School, Indpur, District Kangra) was one of the schools out of 144 schools, which were recognized as being entitled to grant-in-aid, equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances to the teachers of the State Government. At the time when this recognition was granted, the school was running classes only upto Class 10th standard. Later on, the school applied for recognition and affiliation for running +1 and +2 classes. This affiliation and recognition was granted by the State Government, but a rider was added that the State is not liable to provide grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and allowances of the teachers. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners who are teachers of the school teaching in the classes filed the present writ petition. The Principal of the school and society which were originally shown as respondents in the cause title, were later on transposed as petitioners No. 5 and 6 respectively. The petitioners claimed that the State is liable to provide 95% grant-in-aid for all the classes being run in the school. 4. The question as to whether the schools are entitled to 95% grant-in-aid even in respect of +1 and +2 classes is no longer resinterga. A learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 492 of 1997 titled Kailash Gupta and others Vs. The Secretary Education and others following the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and Others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 42, held that the State was bound to provide 95% grant-in-aid even in respect of the salary and allowances of the teachers teaching the classes of +1 and +2. We may note that in that writ petition, the management had filed an affidavit that they would not claim such extra grant-in-aid. But, despite the affidavit, the Court held that the management could not by their affidavit bind the teachers. We may note that in that writ petition, the management had filed an affidavit that they would not claim such extra grant-in-aid. But, despite the affidavit, the Court held that the management could not by their affidavit bind the teachers. The State challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge before a Division Bench of this Court, which appeal was registered as LPA No. 37 of 2004 and has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 17.11.2008. It would be pertinent to quote Paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment: “7. The judgment, upon which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, to allow the writ petition, i.e. Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Rajni Vali (Mrs.) and others (2000) 2 SCC 42, applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. In that case, as in the present case, initially the school upto high school level had been recognized by the Chandigarh Administration and grant-in-aid equivalent to 95% of the salary and other allowances of the teachers was paid by the Chandigarh Administration. Later on, two more classes, i.e. 11th and 12th were added to the school and its level was raised to Senior Secondary School. The classes had been added after obtaining permission from Chandigarh Administration. Permission was conditional, the condition being that no additional grant-in-aid would be asked for in respect of the salary of the teachers to be employed for two additional classes. The teachers, who were employed for the additional classes, demanded salary on part with their counter parts in other schools. When their demand was not met, they filed writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was approached by the Chandigarh Administration through S.L.P. Dismissing the S.L.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that imparting primary and secondary education to students is the bounden duty of the State Administration and it is a Constitutional mandate that State shall ensure proper education to the students, on whom the future of the society depends. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant has stated that when the management had filed an affidavit that they would not be claiming any extra grant-in-aid, learned Single Judge ought not have allowed the writ petition. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant has stated that when the management had filed an affidavit that they would not be claiming any extra grant-in-aid, learned Single Judge ought not have allowed the writ petition. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. The affidavit filed by the management does not bind the teachers, i.e. respondents No. 1 to 11, who were supposedly employed after the affidavit was filed. Otherwise also, there cannot be any estoppel against law and, therefore, the affidavit does not bind anybody, even the management. Also we have been told that the affidavit had not been filed by the management voluntarily, but it was on the asking of the appellants because otherwise they were reluctant to accord permission for addition of classes.” 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by this Court, the writ petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that petitioners No. 5 and 6 are entitled to 95% grant-in-aid even in respect of the salary and allowances payable to teachers teaching +1 and +2 classes. No order as to costs.