ORDER : Petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking(a) directions to respondents to frame a policy for conferring contractual status to teachers working through School Management Committee (in short ‘SMC’) under Local Fund/Student Welfare Fund basis in the Government Schools and for her regularization in due course of time; (b) to declare the petitioner entitled to continue in service from due date i.e. 17.5.2013 with all consequential benefits; (c) direction to release the grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner from due date i.e. 17.5.2013 alongwith interest on market rate; and also, (d) in alternative, direction to treat the petitioner in continuous service in view of notification dated 17.7.2012 extended from time to time with all consequential benefits. 2. However, learned counsel for petitioner has restricted the claim of petitioner in present petition, only for seeking direction to respondents to release the grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner from the due date i.e. 17.5.2013 and alternatively, to release the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 16.8.2014, the date of notification extending the applicability of SMC Policy to all schools including the school of petitioner. 3. Therefore, without adjudicating other prayers of petitioner, leaving those issues open to be decided in appropriate petition, if so preferred, in the present petition claim of petitioner for her entitlement to grant-in-aid is being adjudicated. 4. Undisputed facts in present petition are that for shortage of staff petitioner was engaged by School Management Committee, respondent No.4, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Timbi as Language Teacher on SMC basis w.e.f. 17.5.2013 and since then she is continuing as such. 5. Claim of petitioner is that she is fully eligible to be appointed as Language Teacher fulfilling essential qualification prescribed under Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules) to this post and after appointment, respondents/State has formulated a Policy dated 17.7.2012 with respect to grant-in-aid to teachers appointed on SMC basis for tribal and difficult areas and said Policy as notified vide communication dated 20th September, 2014 was extended to all schools which were upgraded during academic sessions 2013 and 2014 irrespective of area in which she falls and to all those sanctioned posts of teaching cadre which were vacant since more than two years from the date of issue of notification dated 16.8.2014. Resultantly, the area of GSSS Timbi also came in the area for which Policy to engage teacher(s) through SMC was extended. 6. Resultantly, the area of GSSS Timbi also came in the area for which Policy to engage teacher(s) through SMC was extended. 6. Respondents have opposed the claim of petitioner by filing reply, stating therein that petitioner was engaged by School Management Committee vide Resolution dated 16.5.2013 against the post of Language Teacher for Academic Session 2013-14 by deciding to pay honorarium at the rate of Rs.20/- per student by collecting the same from parents/guardians and petitioner was allowed to continue her service for Academic Session 2013-14. It has been further stated in reply that when petitioner was not allowed to continue her service in school for next Academic Session then she approached the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 4464 of 2015 and in pursuant to order dated 24.11.2015 passed by Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, she was allowed to re-join the school on 29.02.2016 and since then, she is continuing as such and after re-joining she has been paid Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.2016 to 31.12.2019 and Rs.3000/- w.e.f. 1.1.2020 to 31.03.2020 by collecting the funds from parents and guardians of students by the concerned School Management Committee. Lastly, it has been stated that this High Court in CWP No. 277 of 2017 titled Subhash Chand vs. State of HP, has held that State cannot be directed to release wages in favour of petitioners who have not been appointed in terms of 2012 Policy, and thus, it has been contended that petitioner is not entitled for any grant-inaid from the respondent/State. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that present case, on the issue being agitated, is squarely covered by judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein direction was issued to respondents to release grant-in-aid to petitioner therein who was similarly situated to present petitioner and in the said case, not only LPA No. 53 of 2018, preferred by respondents department, was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2018, but also SLP (c) No. 19103 of 2019 preferred by respondents’ department was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 9.8.2019. 8. In Villam Singh’s case, Villam Singh was appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) under SMC policy in the school concerned. 8. In Villam Singh’s case, Villam Singh was appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) under SMC policy in the school concerned. He was otherwise eligible for appointment as Lecturer fulfilling the essential qualification prescribed in R&P Rules to such post. The SMC Policy was formulated by State on 17.7.2012 and it was made applicable to all schools including the school wherein Villam Singh was appointed vide notification dated 16.8.2014. 9. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts in Villam Singh’s case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that only reason to deny the petitioner’s grant-in-aid was that he had been engaged prior to the notification dated 16.8.2014 read with SMC Policy dated 17.7.2012 and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the benefit under SMC Policy. It was observed by the Court that it was not the case of respondents department that petitioner’s appointment was in any manner illegal or contrary to law or that he was not qualified. 10. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that findings returned and observations made in Villam Singh’s Case have attained finality after dismissal of Special Leave Petition, preferred by State/respondents, by the Supreme Court, in present case also, it is not a case of respondents’ department that appointment of petitioner was illegal in any manner or contrary to law or he was not qualified. 11. The facts of present case are similar. Petitioner was appointed prior to notification dated 16.8.2014 whereas SMC policy dated 17.7.2012 was made applicable to school of petitioners vide notification dated 16.8.2014. 12. In Villam Singh’s case, it was concluded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that action of respondent in not paying the grant-in-aid to petitioner w.e.f. 16.8.2014 was illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, same could not be countenanced or sustained and thus petition was allowed with direction to respondent-State to release grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner in accordance with Rules w.e.f. 20th September, 2014. 13. There is another aspect of the case. It is the duty of respondents’ Department, being functionary of the State, to provide sufficient teachers in schools opened by State. In present case, it is not the case of State that there was no necessity of Language Teacher in school. Therefore, there was lapse or failure on the part of respondents/State to provide a teacher. It is the duty of respondents’ Department, being functionary of the State, to provide sufficient teachers in schools opened by State. In present case, it is not the case of State that there was no necessity of Language Teacher in school. Therefore, there was lapse or failure on the part of respondents/State to provide a teacher. Hence the School Management Committee was constrained to appoint the petitioner to cater the needs of students. Nothing was done by the respondents/State to provide teacher to teach the students, rather School Management Committee was allowed to appoint and when responsibility to pay arises, the State/Department washed its hands by posing that teacher was engaged by School Management Committee, not State/Department. It is strange behaviour on the part of State that for teaching the students, a candidate is considered to be suitable and eligible, but, for making the payment of grant-in-aid or other emoluments equivalent to similarly situated persons, the same candidate is considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by School Management Committee as well as Department on behalf of respondents/State and for want of requisite qualification. Such behaviour of State is unwarranted. 14. Following observations of this Court made in judgment dated 26.5.2018 passed in CWP No. 384 of 2017 titled Renuka Devi vs. State of HP in this regard would also be relevant:- “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. 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.” 15. On comparing the facts of Villam Singh’s case, with present case and verdict of Court therein, I am of the considered view that present case is squarely covered by judgment passed in Villam Singh’ case, referred supra. Therefore, it is concluded that in present case also, action of respondents in not paying grant-in-aid to petitioner w.e.f. 16.8.2014 is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable. 16. In view of above, respondents are directed to release grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner in accordance with relevant Rules w.e.f. 16.8.2014 and except for her appointment prior to issuance and extension of SMC policy in the school, petitioner is otherwise eligible for grant-in-aid. Arrears of grant-in-aid of petitioner shall be paid as expeditiously as possible preferably before 31st March, 2022. Petition stands disposed of, as aforesaid, including all pending miscellaneous application (s), if any.