Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 534 (HP)

Sonika Chaudhary v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-03

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —In this writ petition, following by way of relief has been sought to be granted:- I. A direction to the respondent-State to pay honorarium to the petitioner as per the PTA policy on her appointment as Lecturer In Biology in Govt. SSS Ghanari, Tehsil & District Una H.P. for the period from 27.09.2008 to 22.06.2009 (nine months) amounting to Rs 43200/ along with interest @ of 18%, till realization of the said amount. II. To consider/count the period from 27.9.2008 to 22.6.2009 for regularization/appointment of the petitioner on contract basis and the absence of 35 days from duty be treated as extra ordinary leave as per the guidelines notified for regularization of the services of the PTA teachers on completion of eight years service. 2. The petitioner admittedly was appointed as PTA teacher under GIA to PTA Rules on 6.9.2006 in Government Senior Secondary School, Ghanari, District Una. Her joining report is Annexure P-1. The respondent-State subsequently constituted a committee to enquire into the complaints made against a teacher appointed on PTA basis. In the case of the petitioner the Committee has considered such complaint bearing No. 56/PTA/2008 and while holding that her appointment as PTA teacher is irregular she was ordered to be removed from service. She, however, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner, Una. The appeal she preferred was allowed and the order removing her from service was quashed by learned Appellate Authority vide its order Annexure P-2. 3. It is worth mentioning here that even after her removal from service by the Complaint Committee the PTA vide its resolution Annexure P-3 allowed her to continue as Lecturer Biology in the school and as per this resolution she was to be paid her salary out of PTA funds because the post of Lecturer Biology was lying vacant in the school. Therefore, consequent upon the order Annexure P-2 passed by the Appellate Authority she continued as PTA teacher in the school. Even presently also, she is working as Lecturer Biology there, although, Lecture Biology on contract basis was appointed and posted in the school during the period 29.9.2010 to 2.11.2010. The said teacher was transferred from the school and the petitioner was again given appointment as Lecturer Biology on PTA basis in the school. It is in this backdrop, the reliefs, as referred at the outset, have been sought. 4. The said teacher was transferred from the school and the petitioner was again given appointment as Lecturer Biology on PTA basis in the school. It is in this backdrop, the reliefs, as referred at the outset, have been sought. 4. The response of the respondents in reply to the writ petition in a nut shell is that the period from 27.9.2008 to 22.6.2009 and 29.9.2010 to 2.11.2010 has to be treated as break in service as during this period she allegedly remain out of job. Such plea seems to have been raised merely for rejection because as already noticed though the Complaint Committee has ordered to dispense with her service, however, the order so passed was held illegal and as such, quashed by the Appellate Authority as is apparent from order Annexure P-2. Otherwise also, the resolution of PTA Committee Annexure P-3 reveals that since the post of Lecturer Biology in the school was lying vacant, therefore, the Committee allowed the petitioner to continue as such in the school even after the Complaint Committee held her appointment as illegal. The petitioner, as such, remained working as Lecturer Biology in the school continuously except for 35 days i.e. from 29.9.2010 to 2.11.2010 when the Lecturer appointed on contract basis remain posted in the school. Such period i.e. 35 days cannot also be treated as break in service because as per the response of the respondent-State the break in service on account of maternity leave beyond 84 or 168 days on medical grounds and a period of maximum 42 days of absence on account of other reason is not to be treated as break in service in view of the instructions dated 3.1.2015 issued by the State Government. Therefore, the petitioner has to be considered in service right from her initial appointment on 6.9.2006 till date. Being so, she is not only entitled to release of grant-in-aid but also consideration of her appointment as Lecturer Biology on contractual basis. 5. In view of what has been said hereinabove, we allow this petition and direct the respondent-State to release the grantin-aid in the case of the petitioner within two months from today and also to consider her case for appointment on contractual basis by counting her service from 6.9.2006 onwards till date within the same time and take appropriate decision in the light of the observations hereinabove and also the law applicable. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.