Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1203 (HP)

Neelam v. State Of H. P.

2019-08-22

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Supplementary affidavit has not been filed despite opportunity granted nor any such affidavit is required to decide the points in issue in this writ petition as the same can otherwise be decided effectively and judiciously in view of the material already available on record. 2. Heard. 3. In this writ petition, a direction has been sought to be passed to the respondents to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006 in favour of the petitioner at par the similarly situated person with all consequential benefits. Order under challenge Annexure P-6, whereby the representation made by her consequent upon the directions of this Court in CWP No. 1555 of 2018 (Annexure P-4) she previously filed, has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 4. The qualification of the petitioner is M.A. (Sociology), B.Ed., M.Ed., LT & TGT (Arts). She has also qualified the Teacher's Eligibility Test. Her testimonials are Annexure P-2 (Colly.). According to her, a post of Post Graduate Teacher (Sociology) was lying vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. The Parents Teachers Association authorized by the respondent-State to provide teachers in the Schools against the post lying vacant, has passed a resolution appointing thereby the petitioner as PGT (Sociology) being eligible, in all respect, for this post. Copy of the resolution dated 15.7.2009 is Annexure P-1. Consequently, she reported for duty and is continuing as PGT in the School till date. The respondent-State, when not released the grant-in-aid in her favour, she filed CWP No. 277 of 2017 in this Court. The said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn by her vide order dated 26.6.2018, Annexure P-3. The complaint is that the respondent-State released the grant in-aid in favour of other similarly situated appointed/situated teachers. When such benefit was withheld from her, she preferred CWP No.1555 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.10.2018 Annexure P-4 with a direction to the petitioner to file representation and the same was directed to be considered and decided by the competent authority by affording opportunity of being heard to all concerned. 5. The petitioner has made the representation Annexure P-5. The same has, however, been rejected vide impugned order dated 3.1.2019, Annexure P-6. 5. The petitioner has made the representation Annexure P-5. The same has, however, been rejected vide impugned order dated 3.1.2019, Annexure P-6. In this way, it is third round of litigation between the parties on the subject matter of dispute i.e. the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the Grant-in-Aid. 6. According to the petitioner, she has been discriminated against the similarly situated person. She has cited the instances such as the case of Hem Raj decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment Annexure P-8, Devi Saran decided vide judgment Annexure P-9 and Kapil Chauhan, decided vide judgment Annexure P-10. In the rejoinder also, she quoted the instance of Deepak Chauhan, whose matter was also decided by this Court vide judgment Annexure P-11. 7. The response of the respondent-State in a nut-shell is, however, that the Government stopped the engagement of the teachers on PTA basis vide instructions dated 3.1.2008. The engagement of the petitioner vide resolution dated 15.7.2009 is therefore, stated to be contrary to the decision so taken by the respondent-State. The judgment of this Court in Hem Raj's case has, however, not been disputed. It has rather come on record that the judgment passed in Hem Raj's case has now been implemented, of course subject to the out come of the SLP preferred by respondent State against the same. It has also come in the rejoinder that the judgment Annexure P-11 passed by this Court in Deepak Chauhan's case has attained finality and implemented also. 8. If it is so, we fail to understand as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the same relief as has been extended to Deepak Chauhan, aforesaid consequent upon the judgment Annexure P-11. Said Mr. Chauhan, was also engaged as Art and Craft Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Tulah, District Mandi on 25.09.2008 i.e. after 3.1.2008, the date of so called decision not to engage the teachers on PTA basis taken by the respondent-State. The judgment passed in Hem Raj's case has also been implemented, of course subject to final outcome of the pending SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment Annexure P-10 in Kapil Chauhan's case also stands implemented and has attained finality. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner is similarly situated person and has been discriminated in the matter of release of Grant-in-Aid against Hem Raj, Kapil Chauhan and Deepak Chauhan, etc. The judgment Annexure P-10 in Kapil Chauhan's case also stands implemented and has attained finality. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner is similarly situated person and has been discriminated in the matter of release of Grant-in-Aid against Hem Raj, Kapil Chauhan and Deepak Chauhan, etc. 9. The points in issue in this writ petition as such are squarely covered by the judgments passed in Hem Raj's case Annexure P-8, Kapil Chauhan's case, Annexure P-10, and Deepak Chauhan's case Annexure P-11. The petitioner being M.A. (Sociology), B.Ed., M.Ed., LT & TGT (Arts) and also qualified the Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET), was eligible for appointment as PGT at the relevant time. It is not even the case of the respondent also that she is not qualified for the post in question. It is worth mentioning that she is working continuously in the School right from her initial appointment vide resolution dated 15.7.2009 Annexure P-1. She has rendered more than ten years of service by now. She, therefore, is entitled to the release of Grant-in-Aid. 10. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to work out the Grant-in-Aid payable to the petitioner, in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006 and release the arrears upto date within two months from today. The respondents are also directed to continue to release the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner in future also till she continue to work as PTA provided teacher in the School. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.