Seema Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Sabina, J

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking following relief:-

“i). That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner with effect from 20th September, 2014 on the same analogy as has been ordered by this Hon’ble Court in Villam Singh’s case, which has attained finality and has been implemented as well, alongwith arrears and interest, in the interest of law and justice.”

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as “Art and Craft Teacher” on the basis of a resolution passed by the School Management Committee and Principal, “Government Middle School Punan, Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla.” Petitioner is working in the school since 06.04.2012. The State of Himachal Pradesh has formulated Grant-in-Aid Rules in the year, 2014. However, the respondents were not paying Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.8.2014, as per Rules. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the similar circumstances, Villam Singh has filed CWP No.2467 of 2015, which was decided vide order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-3). The said order was upheld by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018, passed in LPA No.53 of 2018. The Special Leave to Appeal, filed by the respondents/State, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-3) is concerned, it has attained finality. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed in terms of order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-3).

Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, has opposed the petition, but has failed to controvert the fact that the order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-3) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The relevant portion of the order dated 26.11.2018 reads as under:-

“8. Whether the respondent was appointed as per the procedure prescribed in a Policy which saw the light of the day after his appointment, is essentially a question of fact. There ought to have been appropriate pleadings from the side of the appellants to which respondent could be given an opportunity to submit his counter. No such factual plea was taken in the reply or pleaded before the learned Single Judge. We are thus of the view that such a plea cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. That apart, the respondent admittedly possessed the requisite qualification for the subject post. The object of the SMC Policy for payment of Grant-in-Aid to the teachers appointed in tribal/difficult areas is to give an incentive to the educated and qualified young persons to serve in these areas. The Policy no doubt contemplates a procedure for appointment, but then such procedure cannot be applied to the appointments which have already been made well before the Policy came into existence. The object of paying Grant-in-Aid being an incentive to retain qualified teachers in tribal/difficult areas, no self defeating objection should be allowed to sustain.

We are thus of the view that there is nothing to fault with the appointment of the respondent as SMC teacher for the limited purpose of receiving Grant-in-Aid. No case to interfere with the order under appeal is thus made out. The appeal is dismissed on both counts i.e. on limitation as well as merits.”

After carefully going through the order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-3) as well as order dated 26.11.2018, passed by this Court in LPA No.53 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sh. Villam Singh, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decisions.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.9.2014.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.