Yash Pal and vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioners have claimed the following substantive relief:

"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to release the amount of grant in aid to the petitioners as sanctioned by the Govt. for the PTA teachers qua the petitioner No. 1 w.e.f. May, 2008 to December, 2009 and qua petitioner No. 2 w.e.f. May, 2008 to 23rd September, 2009 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon because the respondents have withheld the said amount illegally."

The petitioners claim themselves to be the qualified teachers in their respective disciplines and were offered the job of Drawing Master and Physical Education Teacher as per their qualification under the Parent Teacher Association Policy of the State. After having undergone the interview before a duly constituted Committee, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Drawing Master in October, 2007 while the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in October, 2007. It is averred that they were discharging their duties diligently and honestly but later on some complaints were filed against thousands of teachers appointed on PTA basis and this Court had directed the respondents to conduct inquiry. The inquiry was conducted under the Chairmanship of SDM, Nahan, who vide his inquiry report Annexure P-1 found no illegality or irregularity in the appointments of the petitioners and concluded that these appointments were made in accordance with the policy framed by the Government and in tune with the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 2632 of 2008 decided on 28.7.2009 titled Koyal Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others.

Now, the claim of the petitioners is that after the inquiry the petitioners were supposed to be given grant-in-aid by the respondents which was sanctioned by the Government at the rate of Rs. 3750/- per month, but the said grant-in-aid qua the petitioner No. 1. for the period from May, 2008 to December, 2009 and qua petitioner No. 2 for the period from May, 2008 to September, 2009 had not been sanctioned so far inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioners. It is further claimed that the said grants were stopped on account of the pending inquiry. Now, since the inquiry was over, there was no justifiable reason to withhold the same.

The respondents have filed the reply and the only ground to oppose the claim of the petitioners has been set out in para-8 of the reply, which reads as under:

"That the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking relief to release the amount of Grant-in-aid qua the petitioner No. 1 w.e.f. May, 2008 to December, 2009 and qua petitioner No. 2 w.e.f. May, 2008 to 23rd September, 2009. It is submitted that in view of the facts and submissions as made in the preceding paras, the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to the Grant-in-aid for the period w.e.f. 19.10.2008 to 31.12.2009 and the petitioner No. 2 for the period w.e.f. 22.10.2008 to 23.09.2009 as they were not held eligible for their job in view of the inquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee vide No. 7830 M.A./SDM-N(PTA)/08 dated 06.10.2008 and No. 7829 M.A./SDM-N(PTA/08 dated 06.10.2008 respectively. However, the petitioner No. 1 remained present in the school w.e.f. 01.05.2008 to 18.10.2008 and the petitioner No. 2 rendered his services in the said school w.e.f. 01.05.2008 to 21.10.2008, therefore, they are entitled to Grant-in-aid for the above period and necessary direction in this behalf is being given to the quarter concerned. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed."

I have heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records carefully.

I am of the considered view that the stand taken by the respondents is far from fair, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for no fault of them. Admittedly, the petitioners were denied the grant-in-aid at the rates claimed by them only on account of the pending inquiry which too, culminated in their favour.

This Court in CWP No. 1238 of 2013 titled Hem Chand vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 23.8.2014 was dealing with a case where the appointment of the petitioner therein had been delayed for no fault of his and had come to be appointed after about five years of recommendation and this Court held as under:

"3. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was delayed for no fault of his and came to be appointed only in the year 2009, that too after the intervention of this Court. The result of delayed appointment of the petitioner is that he has been paid less salary and denied the seniority over a long period of time. It has been consistently opined that in case a candidate is wrongly denied appointment for no fault on his part, he cannot be denied appointment from due date and consequential seniority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and others Vs. Union of India and others, , Sanjay Dhar Vs. J and K Public Service Commn. and Another, , Hawa Singh Sangwan vs. Union of India & others and 1996 (6) Vol. 116, Services Law Reporter, 335, Hawa Singh and others vs. The Haryana State Electricity Board.

This Court further relied upon the following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in case Chattar Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 188 of 2012, wherein it was held:

"3. No doubt, the petitioner joined duty only on 13.5.2003. But in his favour admittedly there is an order by the Appointing Authority on 8.8.2002 to give appointment, as has been noted by the Tribunal in Annexure P-1, order. It is that order, which has been upheld by the Tribunal and the direction issued by the Tribunal is for implementing the said order. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed on 8.8.2002, on the date admittedly the petitioner was directed to be appointed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has joined duly on 13.5.2003 after the order was issued to him, the entitlement of the petitioner for actual monetary benefit shall be only from 13.5.2003. In order to avoid any ambiguity, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be deemed to be appointed in the post of Gramin Vidya Upasak on 8.8.2002 for all purposes; but from 8.8.2002 to 13.5.2003, the benefits shall only be notional and from 13.5.2003, the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits."

The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the amount of grant-in-aid to the petitioners as sanctioned by the Government for the PTA teachers w.e.f. May, 2008 to December, 2009 qua petitioner No. 1 and w.e.f. May, 2008 to 23.9.2009 qua petitioner No. 2, within a period of three months, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The petition stands disposed of on above terms.

CMP No. 13877 of 2014

Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition.