ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: (I) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the services of the petitioner on contract basis from the date when juniors of the petitioner in the State have been given such benefits with further directions to give all the monetary benefits of the contract services to the petitioner w.e.f. January, 2015 when such benefits were extended to the juniors of the petitioner in the State of HP in the interest of justice. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the entire arrears of grant in aid to the petitioner with effect from 2007, the date when respondents started releasing grant in aid to the PTA teachers with interest @ 12 % p.a. till date and also to pay grant in aid in future to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that in 2005, the strength of students in +1 and +2 classes in GSSS Lalpani, Shimla was around 2000. Only 1 (one) DPE was posted in the said school. The school management found it difficult to cope with the requirements of students with only one DPE posted in the school. Permission was sought for another post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla from respondent No.2. Keeping in view the strength of the students, respondent No.2 granted the sanction to employ a DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla through the PTA. A selection committee was constituted. The post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla was advertised. Total 24 candidates participated in the selection process. Interviews were conducted and a panel of successful candidates was prepared. Petitioner was placed at serial No.2. The post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla was initially offered to the person placed at serial No.1 of the merit list, however, the said person resigned from the post within a month from the date of joining. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment in October, 2005. Petitioner accepted the offer and has been working as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla since then. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment in October, 2005. Petitioner accepted the offer and has been working as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla since then. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite being allowed to work as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla since 2005, he was not granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and was paid meagre emoluments from PTA funds. His further grievance is that he had also become entitled for the benefit of contract appointment after requisite period of service followed by regularization as per the policy adopted by the State Government. 4. The respondents, by way of their reply, have contested the claim of petitioner only on the ground that there was only one sanctioned post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla and it was held by a regular incumbent. Petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post and hence had no right to claim the benefits of grant-in-aid scheme to PTA teachers formulated by the State Government. The other factual aspects of the matter have not been denied on behalf of the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. It is evidently clear from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner has been working as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla since October, 2005. Almost 17 years have elapsed since the appointment of petitioner. Petitioner is being paid meager emoluments out of the PTA funds. Petitioner has been denied the benefit of PTA-GIA Policy-2006 only on the ground that he was not appointed against the sanctioned post. It is also not denied that respondent No.2 had allowed the Principal, GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla vide communication dated 13.07.2005 to appoint a DPE in the school out of the PTA funds keeping in view the strength of the students in the school. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of such sanction accorded by respondent No.2, a selection process was initiated and petitioner was appointed as DPE in the school in pursuance thereto. The qualification of petitioner for the post of DPE is also not in question. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question arises whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of PTA-GIA-2006 policy and further benefits of contract employment and regularization, merely on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post? 8. The qualification of petitioner for the post of DPE is also not in question. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the question arises whether the petitioner can be denied the benefit of PTA-GIA-2006 policy and further benefits of contract employment and regularization, merely on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post? 8. The State Government has been justifying the appointment of teachers by PTA on the grounds of its financial constraints. The temporary employment to teachers by PTA has continued for many years. The continuance of the employment in aforesaid form crystalized certain rights in favour of the incumbents so employed. The State Government formulated the PTA-GIA Policy in 2006. Subsequently, after requisite number of years, the incumbents appointed by the PTAs were given contract employment followed by regularization. 9. Petitioner was appointed by the PTA of the school before formulation of PTA-GIA-2006 Policy. The mere fact that petitioner has been allowed to work as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla for such a long spell proves that the requirement of deployment of second DPE to cope with the pressure of work continued throughout. That being so, the stand of the respondents to deny petitioner the grant-in-aid and all consequential benefits is clearly unjustified. 10. The respondents have utilized the services of the petitioner for 17 long years for their own cause and requirement. It is on record that the Administrative Department recommended to the State Government for creation of an additional post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla, but the same was rejected by the Finance Department. The failure of the Government to create an additional post of DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla despite the requirement to meet students-teachers ratio cannot be used as a tool to exploit the petitioner. In case there was no requirement to have second DPE in the school, petitioner should not have been allowed to work for such a long period. Once the respondents have utilized the services of the petitioner, they are estopped from denying him the claims as have been given to other PTA teachers. 11. In CWP No. 226 of 2010, titled Promila Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.04.2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in almost identical facts, posed a pertinent question as under: “6. 11. In CWP No. 226 of 2010, titled Promila Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.04.2015, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in almost identical facts, posed a pertinent question as under: “6. At this stage, a wider issue arises for consideration as to whether the State as a model employer after having extracted nearly a decade of service from the petitioner can claim that she had not been regularly appointed. Further, can the State be permitted to argue that petitioner even in these days of high cost of living should remain content with the remuneration of Rs.1000/- more particularly when admittedly the petitioner has already been paid the salary out of PTA fund with effect from April 2010 to March 2013.” 12. While answering the above noted question, it was observed as under: “9. The matter can be looked from a different angle. Indisputably the petitioner had been appointed and assigned the duties to teach the students and such duties have been continuously performed by her. Then can the respondents, who are model employers, be permitted to act with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in “Begar”, which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the High Court of H.P. Constitution of India. 10. The State government is expected to function like a model employer, who is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employee and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case the conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer.” 13. Similarly, in CWP No. 384 of 2017, titled Renuka Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.05.2018, another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in related facts situation observed as under : “13. It is strange behavior on the part of the State that for teaching students, petitioner is eligible, but for making payment of grantinaid, she is being considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA on behalf of respondents-State. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to continue for 11 years. It is strange behavior on the part of the State that for teaching students, petitioner is eligible, but for making payment of grantinaid, she is being considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA on behalf of respondents-State. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to continue for 11 years. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner for her appointment as Science teacher. 16. Present case is a glaring example of exploitation of unemployed destitute citizens by mighty State. ‘We the people of India’ have submitted ourselves to a Democratic Welfare State. In India, since ancient era, State is always for welfare of citizens being guardian and protector of their rights. Primary duty of State is welfare of people and exploitive actions of rulers have always been deprecated and history speaks that such rulers were always reprimanded and punished. “Rule of Law” was and is Fundamental Principle of “Raj Dharma”. Dream of our forefathers, to establish “Rule of Law” after independence, has emerged in our Constitution. Exploitation by State has never been expected on the part of State as the same can never be termed as ‘Rule of Law’, but the same is arbitrariness which is antithesis of ‘Rule of Law’. To make law, to ameliorate exploitation, is duty of State and in fact State has also framed laws to prevent exploitation. But in present case State is an instrumental in exploitation which is contrary to essence of the Constitution.” 14. Applying the above noticed exposition to the facts of the case, there is no hesitation to hold that the treatment given to petitioner by respondents is harsh and discriminatory and hence cannot be sustained. Petitioner was duly qualified from the very inception of his joining as DPE in GSSS, Lalpani, Shimla in October, 2005. There is no allegation of petitioner being incompetent to discharge his duties. Respondent No.1 as a model employer cannot be allowed to indulge in exploitative actions towards the citizens of the country. The administrative failure of respondents to sanction a post despite requirement cannot be allowed to be used as a shield for such exploitative action. 15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 as a model employer cannot be allowed to indulge in exploitative actions towards the citizens of the country. The administrative failure of respondents to sanction a post despite requirement cannot be allowed to be used as a shield for such exploitative action. 15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed as under: i) To release the grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner from the date when the grant-in-aid Rules were notified and; ii) To consider the case of petitioner for contract employment and regularization in accordance with the policy. 16. The aforesaid directions be complied with within a period of three months. Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.