IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7702 of 2021 Decided on 29th May 2026 Sh. Kewal Kumar Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Piyush Mehta and Anshul Jairath, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No.11826 of 2026 For the reasons stated therein, the present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and stands disposed of. CWP No.7702 of 2021 2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage, today itself. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- 2 “(A) That the writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued and the respondents may be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant In Aid Rules, 2006 to the petitioner without any discrimination and consequently release the Grant-In-Aid in his favour from the date of his initial appointment alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. (B) That the respondents may be further directed to continue releasing the Grant-In-Aid in favour of the petitioner in future also, in accordance with law. (C) That the respondents may further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on the completion of requisite number of years of service in terms of various regularization policies of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as applicable to respondent- Department.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner was appointed by the Parents Teachers Association of the Government Senior Secondary School Samloti, District Kangra, H.P., as a Drawing Master. The Principal of the School was also a signatory to his appointment letter. His grievance is that despite the fact that the petitioner continues to serve against the post of Drawing Master till date, grant-in-aid is not being paid to him. It is in this backdrop that the reliefs mentioned hereinabove are being claimed by the petitioner. 3 5. The stand of the Department is that in view of the provisions of the PTA Rules, 2006, coupled with certain directions which at the relevant time were given by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.2 wrote to all the Deputy Directors on 03.10.2006 to ensure the compliance of the order of the learned Administrative Tribunal qua GIA Rules. The PTAs were required to display the vacancy position and the venue and date of the interview on the notice board concerned of the Gram Panchayats. Further, the PTAs were to engage Teachers provided they had sufficient funds by giving due publicity to the post in issue to be filled. As per the respondents, in the present case, as the petitioner was engaged by the PTA in violation of the instructions of the Government, therefore, the members of the PTAs were solely responsible to grant salary to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was fully eligible to be appointed against the post of Drawing Master when he was appointed as such. He further submitted that since 09.09.2008, the petitioner is imparting 4 education to the students of the School in issue and, if the appointment of the petitioner was bad in law, then, nothing prevented the Department from dispensing with his services. However, the very fact that the petitioner has been allowed to continue on the said post for almost 18 years demonstrates that there is no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that herein, the Department on one hand, is taking advantage of the services of the petitioner and ensuring that the post of Drawing Master is occupied and students are being imparted education, but, on the other hand, is not paying due and admissible salary to him, which otherwise is payable to a Teacher. Learned counsel submitted that forget the due and admissible salary payable to a regular teacher, even grant-in-aid is not being paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that the act of the State is both arbitrary and discriminatory and the petition be allowed as prayed for. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, by referring to the reply of the State submitted that, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not appointed by the 5 Department, but by the PTA, the onus to pay whatever the petitioner is entitled to, lies on the PTA. He submitted that at the time of the engagement of the petitioner, no holding out or promise was made by the Department that his wages shall be paid by the Department. He submitted that it is a matter of record that the petitioner was engaged by the PTA in violation of the instructions of the Government and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for grant-in-aid and, thus, as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also documents appended therewith. 9. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the petitioner is serving as a Drawing Master in the Government School concerned since 09.09.2008. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner was not appointed by the Department or by following the procedure prescribed in the R&P Rules, but, has been appointed by the PTA. However, fact of the matter remains that the appointment of the petitioner by the PTA was on the basis of a policy flouted by the State itself. The Principal 6 of the School is signatory to the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner is continuing in the said School for almost 18 years now. This Court is not giving any legitimacy to the appointment of the petitioner, but, in light of the fact that the Department has been extracting the work from the petitioner for the last 18 years, the Department cannot now deny him the grant-in-aid. 10. The contention of the Department that the petitioner has been engaged in violation of the PTA Rules does not impress the Court for the reason that it is not as if the petitioner was engaged in some Private School. He was engaged in a Government School. That being the case, nothing prevented the Department to take action against the petitioner immediately after his appointment and throw him out of service, if there was any illegality or irregularity qua his appointment. However to the contrary, the Department has permitted the petitioner to continue to serve as a Drawing Master for the last 18 years. 7 11. In this backdrop, the least that the Department owes to the petitioner is the release of the grant-in-aid, as is payable to him, till the time he continues in service. 12. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by holding that the act of the Department of not granting grant-in-aid to the petitioner is held to be bad and the respondents are directed to pay grant-in-aid to the petitioner from the date of his appointment, till he continues to serve in the School concerned. Arrears, if any, be released within a period of four weeks from today. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 29, 2026 (Vinod)