Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 542 (HP)

Ajay Bhardwaj v. State of H. P.

2025-03-28

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner was appointed as Drawing Master on 23.11.2015 by the School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School (GSSS) Balera, District Solan by passing a resolution. Petitioner was not being paid Grant-in-Aid. He, therefore, instituted Ajay Bhardwaj Versus State of H.P. and others, CWP No.6219 of 2023, decided on 08.09.2023. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law and taking into consideration the judgments rendered in Villam Singh Versus State of HP & Ors.,CWP No.2467 of 2015, decided on 7.4.2016, Bhadur Singh and another Versus State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No.7906 of 2019, decided on 08.10.2021 and State of Himachal Pradesh & others Versus Sauju Ram, LPA No.80 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matter on 17.08.2023. Respondent No.2 in compliance to the above directions, passed an order on 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-6), rejecting the case of the petitioner. Grant-in-Aid was declined in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his engagement was in contravention of School Management Committee (SMC) Policy. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that post of Drawing Master had been lying vacant in GSSS Balera, District Solan for more than three years prior to petitioner’s appointment against it on 23.11.2015 on SMC basis. Petitioner is entitled to Grant-in-Aid consequent upon his such appointment. This right flows to the petitioner under SMC Policy notified on 17.07.2012 as also the SMC Policy dated 20.12.2018. Whereas, according to the learned Assistant Advocate General, petitioner was though appointed under SMC Policy, but without following the prescribed norms, hence, not entitled to Grant-in-Aid under the quoted policies. 3. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged by the SMC of GSSS Balera, District Solan against the sanctioned post of Drawing Master on 23.11.2015. The respondents have declined to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was without following any procedure and norms as notified in the SMC policy dated 17.07.2012. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, Latest HLJ 2024 (HP)(2) 1093. The respondents have declined to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his appointment was without following any procedure and norms as notified in the SMC policy dated 17.07.2012. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, Latest HLJ 2024 (HP)(2) 1093. In the said case, the stand of the respondents was that appointment of the petitioner therein, who was engaged as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on SMC basis, was without following any valid procedure, therefore, he was not entitled for Grant-in-Aid. It was also urged for the respondents in that case that there was no provision in the SMC Policy to engage PET. The Court did not accept the reasons assigned by the respondents and observed that if the Department was of the view that SMC had not been conferred any power for engaging any PET, then, as soon as the petitioner was engaged as such by the SMC, the Department should have called upon the SMC to dis-engage his services; This course was not adopted by the Department; The petitioner therein was allowed to continue to serve as PET; Such action of the Department would amount to its acquiescence insofar as engagement of the petitioner therein as PET by the SMC is concerned.Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “5. Learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner on PET basis was without following any valid procedure, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, he has prayed for. He has further submitted that as there is no provision in the policy to engage PET on SMC basis, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. However, it could not be disputed that order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in favour of an incumbent similarly situated as the petitioner has been implemented by the Department. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the SMC of the School concerned and that too, in the year 2011. Incidentally, the School, in which, the petitioner was engaged was not a private School, but a Government School. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the SMC of the School concerned and that too, in the year 2011. Incidentally, the School, in which, the petitioner was engaged was not a private School, but a Government School. If the Department was of the view that SMC was not conferred any power or authority of engaging any PET, then, as soon as the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the SMC, the Department should have called upon the SMC to disengage the service of the petitioner. This not having been done and the fact of the matter being that the petitioner continues to serve as PET till date, this amounts to acquiescence of the Department as far as the engagement of the petitioner as a PET Teacher in the School by the SMC is concerned. Besides this, it is not the case of the respondents before this Court that SMC has engaged the petitioner as a PET in the absence of any such post being there in the School or that the petitioner has not imparted any physical education to the students of the School. Therefore, if the services of the petitioner has been utilized by the Department since the year 2011, as far as imparting of education of physical education to the students studying in that School is concerned, the non-release of Grant-in-Aid in his favour on the reasoning which has been assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Otherwise also, whether or not a PET appointed through SMC is entitled for the release of Grain-in-Aid is no more res-integra and the issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court CWPOA No.7906 of 2019, titled Bhadur Singh and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in this view of the matter, the denial of the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner by respondents is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-4 dated 23.09.2023, is quashed and set aside and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of petitioner in accordance with relevant Rules w.e.f. 16.8.2014, except for his appointment prior to issuance and extension of SMC policy in the school concerned. Arrears be paid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Arrears be paid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” In view of above reasons, the Court in Ramesh Kumar’s case directed the respondents to release Grant-in- Aid in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules. Similar is the ratio of decision in Shri Ravi Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No.1631 of 2023, decided on 06.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid decisions have been implemented by the respondents and Grant-in-Aid has been released in favour of the petitioners therein. 4. Facts of the present case are almost similar to that of Ramesh Kumar’s[Latest HLJ 2024 (HP)(2) 1093] case. Present petitioner is serving as Drawing Master in a government school on SMC basis w.e.f. 23.11.2015. The respondents were aware about petitioner’s appointment as such. Petitioner has placed on record correspondence exchanged by the Principal of the concerned school with the respondents conveying appointment of petitioner on SMC basis. In case the respondents had any issue about petitioner having been appointed without following the prescribed norms in the SMC Policy, it was for them to take this objection and appropriate action at the relevant time. The respondents acquiesced to the appointment of the petitioner and let him serve as such in the school. Petitioner has continued to serve as Drawing Master year after year. There is no complaint against his work and conduct. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had been appointed as Drawing Master against a non-existent post. At this stage, the respondents cannot deny Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner by raising the plea of his appointment, allegedly being contrary to the norms. Therefore, following the ratio of above referred decisions, petitioner is entitled to Grant-in-Aid. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the due and admissible Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules, within a period of eight weeks from today. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.