Rajni Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That the impugned Oder dated 28.5.2022 contained in Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant in Aid rules 2006 to the petitioner without any discrimination, from the date of initial appointment.

iii) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petitioner at par with the similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits and take a decision in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled as Hem Raj Sharma vs. State of HP and CWP No. 2638 of 2015, titled as Devi Saran vs. State of HP (Annexure P-7 and P-8."

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a Drawing Master in Government Senior Secondary School, Pahara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, HP, by the Parents Teacher Association of said school. She approached the Court earlier also with the prayer that she be paid grant-in-aid in terms of the Grant-In-Aid Rules, 2006. The earlier writ petition of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as a representation and the Authority was directed to pass a decision thereupon.

In terms of Annexure P-4, the Authority has rejected the request of the petitioner by inter alia holding that the petitioner was engaged by the SMC of the School when it was not authorised to engage teachers in the school and as the engagement of the petitioner was not in consonance with any policy of the State Government, be it the grant-in-aid policy or some other policy, she was not entitled for any relief.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner since her engagement in the year 2010, is performing the duties of a Drawing Master in a government school against the sanctioned post. He further submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post in issue, yet, Grant-in-Aid is being denied to the petitioner on the ground that she was not appointed under the Grant-in-Aid Rules but was appointed by the SMC. With regard to the impugned order, learned Counsel has submitted that though it is the stand of the Authority that the SMC engaged the petitioner when it was not authorized to engage teachers in the school, yet, fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has been serving in the school concerned for the last 16 years, performing the duties of a Drawing Master and no action has been taken by the Department against her. In these circumstances, he submitted that neither the impugned order is sustainable in the eyes of law nor the act of the respondents of denying the petitioner the Grant-in-Aid is sustainable. He also submitted that the petitioner was engaged by Parent Teacher Association (PTA).

On the other hand, learned Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State stated that in the present case the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee/Parent Teacher Association when there was no sanction with the said Committee to appoint anyone. He further submitted that in this backdrop as the appointment of the petitioner was during the period when the SMC/PTA was not authorized to engage a teacher, on the strength thereof, even if the petitioner is continuing till date, she cannot claim Grant-in-Aid. Learned Advocate General further submitted that Grant-in-Aid was permissible only to those who were appointed under the Grant-in-Aid Rules and fulfilling the criteria laid therein and Grant-in-Aid cannot, as a matter of right, be claimed by anyone, who has not been appointed against a post by the SMC/PTA and that too when SMC/PTA was not authorised to appoint such a teacher.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged by the PTA of the school concerned in the year 2010 as a Drawing Master. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner continued to serve as such against the post of a Drawing Master. This Court is of the considered view that whether or not the appointment of the petitioner was correctly done by the PTA is not something which has to be decided by this Court in this petition. Herein the only issue to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner can be denied the honorarium in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Rules or not for imparting education in the school. This Court is of the considered view that as the appointment of the petitioner was in a Government School, therefore, in case, said engagement was, in any terms, bad in law, nothing prevented the Department to do away with her services. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner is serving the Department for the last 16 years and performing the duties of a regular teacher. In these circumstances, the State cannot be allowed to deny at least the honorarium to which the petitioner is entitled to under the Grant-in-Aid Rules. Here is a very precarious situation wherein the persons like petitioner are called upon by the PTAs or SMC to impart education to the students and when such petitioners demand parity with those appointed under Grant-in-Aid/PTA, then objection is taken by the Department with regard to the mode of their appointment, however, no action in the interregnum is taken against them, in case, their appointment, in fact, was bad in law, though, obviously, because their appointment is in a Government School, it cannot be the case of the Department that they were not aware of said appointment. Earlier also, this Court in CWP No. 4971 of 2021, titled as Susheel Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 26.03.2024, has observed that when the appointment of the petitioner was not objected to by the Department, the same amounts to acquiescence on the part of the Department. Herein as the petitioner has been serving the Department for the last 16 years, the least she is entitled to is the Grant-in-Aid and the same cannot be denied to the petitioner by the Department. The reasoning given in the impugned order by the Authority to justify the denial thereof to the petitioner is also not sustainable in law, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, impugned order Annexure P-4 is quashed and set aside.

This petition is therefore partly allowed and disposed of with the direction that the petitioner is held entitled to Grant-in-Aid as per rules as from the date of her engagement and difference of salary/arrears be released to the petitioner forthwith and henceforth, honorarium in terms of PTA policy be paid to her. However, it is clarified that passing of this order should not be construed that this Court has given any legitimacy to the appointment of the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.