IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2826 of 2023 Decided on: 30.06.2026 Smt. Kiran Bala …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up for final consideration. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.09.2024 in furtherance to the policy to engage the teachers on SMC basis; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of judgment dated 07.04.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2467/2015 titled as Villam Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Others (Annexure P8), affirmed by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 53 of 2018 vide judgment dated 26.11.2018 and further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19103/2019 vide judgment dated 09.08.2019, and consequently the petitioner may be held entitled to all 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 consequential benefits including seniority and arrears.” 3. The case of petitioner is that she passed B.P. Ed. and Vocational Course from H.P. State Council for Vocational Training, Sunder Nagar. She was appointed as a PET on SMC basis at GHS, Chhou-Bhogar, Education Block Dadahu, District Sirmaur w.e.f. 17.06.2012. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Government notified a policy on 17.07.2012, for the purpose of engaging teachers through School Management Committees on period basis, in difficult/tribal areas, against vacant posts. This policy vide notification dated 16.08.2014 was extended to the schools, which were upgraded during the academic session 2013-14 and 2014-15, irrespective of the area where the schools were located. As per the petitioner she continues to serve in GHS, Chhou- Bhogar, District Sirmaur, till date. Her grievance is that she has not been paid Grant-in-Aid though persons who similarly situated as the petitioners, who also have been appointed through School Management Committee, are being paid the Grant-in-Aid. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the Department of not releasing Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that when the petitioner is performing the work of a teacher in a Government School then it is both arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the respondents to deny her Grant-in-Aid. Learned 3 Counsel also submitted that the issue otherwise is not res integra and the petitioner is entitled to the relief being prayed in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled Villam Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 07.04.2016, SLP filed against which judgment by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, was dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by drawing the attention of the Court to the reply filed, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the School Management Committee, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any Grant-in-Aid. He further submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner was without compliance to the formalities as are envisaged in the SMC policy, therefore, also the petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended thereto. 7. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as PET at GHS, Chhou-Bhogar, District Sirmaur w.e.f. 17.06.2012 by the School Management Committee of the School. It is also a matter of record that the School where the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee happens to be a Government School. That being the case, when the respondent-Department did 4 not object to the appointment of the petitioner as PET at GHS, Chhou-Bhogar, District Sirmaur by the School Management Committee, denial of benefit to the petitioner, as are being claimed by him by way of present writ petition, is completely arbitrary and discriminatory. This Court fails to understand as to how a Teacher like the petitioner, who actually has imparted education in a Government School to the students and students who have been taught by him have passed out successfully from the said School, can be denied the benefit of Grant-in-Aid, on the reasons assigned in the reply. If the reasoning given therein is accepted by this Court, then this Court would be giving premium to the act of the respondents of exploiting persons like the petitioner, who on account of lack of transparency in the system of recruitment of Teachers to Government Schools are being forced to impart education to students, taking advantage of their unemployment, at meager salaries. The distinction which has been carved by the respondents in Villam Singh’s case vis-à-vis the petitioner that Villam Singh was engaged when SMC Policy to engage Teachers was not in vogue, is without any rationale, because if the Department felt that appointment of petitioner was bad, then it was duty bound to have had immediately terminated the services of the petitioner. This, admittedly, was not done by the Department. The Department acquiesced to the appointment of the petitioner by the School 5 Management Committee by not calling upon the Principal concerned to terminate the services of the petitioner. It permitted the petitioner to impart education to the students admitted in the School, one academic year after another academic year. In the light of said act of the Department, now it does not lie in the eyes of the Department to deny the benefit of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of his appointment. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 30, 2026 (narender)