Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DAILYLAW 1054 (HP)

Hem Raj Sharma v. State of H. P.

2015-08-07

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as DPE in Government Senior Secondary School, Thona on P.T.A. basis on 1.10.2008. His services were terminated on 24.12.2010. He approached this Court by filing CWP No. 785/2011 against his termination dated 24.12.2010. In sequel to the direction issued by this Court, petitioner rejoined in Government Senior Secondary School, Thona on 7.4.2011. He was again terminated on 8.7.2011. He approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2729/2012. CWP No.2729/2012 was decided on 23.4.2012. Petitioner rejoined on 13.6.2012 after the judgment dated 23.4.2012. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2304/2014. It was decided on 23.1.2015. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure P-9 dated 9.4.2015. Case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that he is not being paid grant-in-aid. 2. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the court to Annexure R-1 dated 3.1.2008 whereby the PTAs were stayed immediately accepting the joining of PTA teachers. 3. Petitioner was appointed as DPE in Government Senior Secondary School, Thona on PTA basis on 1.10.2008. Petitioner has given instances of 5 teachers, who were appointed after 3.1.2008 in para 9 of the petition vide Annexure P-5. It has come in the reply that these 5 teachers were offered appointment by the PTA, Government Senior Secondary School, Dheera on 9.10.2007 after conducting the interview, but they were not allowed to join the duties. They filed CWP No. 93/2008. Thereafter, these 5 teachers were permitted to join on PTA basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Dheera. Petitioner has also given the instances of 3 teachers, namely, Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal, who were appointed on PTA basis after 3.1.2008 and are being paid grant-in-aid. Respondents have not denied the averments made qua these 3 teachers, who were appointed after 3.1.2008 but are being paid grant-in-aid. 4. Petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondent-State. He was constrained to approach this Court repeatedly for the redressal of his grievances. Petitioner’s case should have been considered on the parity of Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal for the purpose of release of grant-in-aid. The decision of the respondents not to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner is arbitrary. 5. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 dated 9.4.2015 is quashed and set aside. The decision of the respondents not to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner is arbitrary. 5. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 dated 9.4.2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner on the parity of Indira Devi, Kaurra Devi and Mukand Lal within a period of 6 weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.