IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6823 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar Jhanji …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sharma and Ms. Meghna Kashava, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “a. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to sanction Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner for the period he has been working on the post of Lecturer (Commerce) on PTA basis in GSSS Kunihar from 10.10.2008 till date except for a break from 02.07.2014 to 11.05.2018 due to the joining of a contract teacher. b. To direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Commerce) w.e.f the date the services of similarly situated persons as indicated in Annexure-P/12 have been regularized with concomitant financial benefits with interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till payment thereof. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- c. To quash impugned order dated 03.01.2019 Annexure-P/8 being arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, void and illegal.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 10.10.2008, petitioner herein, who possesses degrees of M.Com and B.Ed, was selected against the post of Lecturer (Commerce) by PTA of Government Senior Secondary School, Kunihar. W.e.f 10.10.2008 till 01.07.2014, petitioner kept on discharging his duties in afore school on PTA basis, but w.e.f. 02.07.2014, he was not permitted to work in the said post due to appointment of a contract teacher on the same post in the school concerned. In the month of April, 2018, post of Lecturer (Commerce) again fell vacant in Government Senior Secondary School, Kunihar and vide order dated 11.05.2015, petitioner was again reengaged on the of post of Lecturer (Commerce) in Government Senior Secondary School Kunihar by School Management Committee (in short “SMC”). From afore date, petitioner is still continuing. In the year 2018, petitioner filed CWP No.2264 of 2018 for release of Grant-in-Aid in his favour under Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006, but afore writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within one week with further direction to the competent authority to decide the same within two months. However, vide order dated 03.01.2019, representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, -3- again filed CWP No.732 of 2019. Though afore writ petition was dismissed, vide judgment dated 02.12.2019, but petitioner filed LPA No.2 of 2020, which was also withdrawn by him on 22.09.2023 with liberty to file review petition before learned Single Judge. In the year 2023, petitioner filed Review Petition No.47 of 2024 for review of judgment dated 02.12.2019 in CWP No.732 of 2019. Vide order 03.01.2025, afore review petition was allowed by learned Single Judge, as a result thereof, CWP No.732 of 2019 came to be restored to its original number. On 10.10.2022, during pendency of the afore writ petition, Government extended the Grant-in-Aid Policy and also directed to regularize the services of the PTA appointed teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008 i.e. after closure of the Grant-in-Aid Policy. 3. Pursuant to aforesaid Policy decision taken by the Government, vide order dated 14.12.2022, Government regularized the services of 26 teachers, who were appointed on PTA basis after 03.01.2008. In afore background, petitioner sought leave of the Court to withdraw CWP No.732 of 2019, with liberty to file fresh petition claiming the benefits flowing from the aforesaid decision dated 10.10.2022 taken by the Government, thereby extending Grant-in-Aid Policy even in case of such teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008. In afore background, petitioner has filed the present petition, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. -4- 4. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner had been continuously teaching at Government Senior Secondary School, Kunihar w.e.f. 10.10.2008 till 02.07.2014 and thereafter, w.e.f May, 2018 to till date, but yet he is not being released Grant-in-Aid, as a result thereof, he is compelled to teach the students on a very meager salary/honorarium of Rs.2500/-. Mr. Sharma, submitted that since the petitioner was appointed in the month of May, 2018 by SMC, coupled with the fact that in the year 2018, there was no policy for appointment on PTA basis and thereafter, in the year 2022, Government itself decided to regularize the services of such of the PTA Teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008 i.e. after closure of Grant-in-Aid Policy, petitioner herein, who has been continuously teaching w.e.f 10.10.2008 till 02.07.2014 and thereafter, w.e.f May, 2018, is also required to be extended similar benefit. 5. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that though w.e.f 10.10.2008 till July, 2014 petitioner had been working on PTA basis, but since thereafter his services were disengaged w.e.f August, 2014 till April 2018 and now, appointment of the petitioner in the month of May, 2018 was made by SMC, petitioner herein cannot be granted any benefit of Policy decision dated 10.10.2022 taken by the Government, thereby deciding to regularize the -5- services of such of the PTA teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008. He submitted that since fresh appointment of the petitioner in the month of May, 2018 was made by SMC, coupled with the fact that in the year 2008, petitioner was appointed on PTA basis after the closure of PTA Rules, he cannot claim benefit, if any, of the Policy decision dated 10.10.2022. He further submitted that since appointment of the petitioner w.e.f May, 2018 on SMC basis was made without any prior approval and direction of the Government, he cannot claim Grant- in-Aid qua such period. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. 7. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner herein, after his having completed degrees of M.Com and B.Ed, was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) at Government Senior Secondary School, Kunihar on PTA basis on 10.10.2008. W.e.f afore date, petitioner kept on discharging duties of Lecturer (Commerce) in the school concerned till 02.07.2014 and thereafter, his services were disengaged due to appointment of a contract teacher against the post in question. In the month of May, 2018, post of Lecturer (Commerce) again fell vacant in the school in question and thereafter, petitioner was reengaged, but not by PTA, rather by the SMC of the shool concerned. Though w.e.f afore date, petitioner has been continuously teaching in the school concerned, but on a very meager salary/honorarium. -6- 8. True, it is that w.e.f year 2008, Grant-in-Aid Scheme was discontinued, but yet petitioner herein was permitted to continue or was reengaged in the month of May, 2018. Thereafter, petitioner is still continuing in service on SMC basis. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner had been sincerely teaching the students of the school concerned in the subject of Commerce for such a long period, he cannot be denied due and admissible benefits. In the year 2022, Government extended Grant-in-Aid Policy, which was discontinued in 2008, as a result thereof, services of the PTA appointed teachers were regularized. In terms of afore Policy, even such of the persons, who were appointed after 03.01.2008, were also granted benefit of PTA Policy, as a result thereof, they not only received Grant-in-Aid, but their services were also regularized. Since petitioner herein was appointed on PTA basis on 10.10.2008 and in afore capacity, he worked continuously till 01.07.2014 and thereafter, he was once again reengaged w.e.f May 2018 and till date, he is working, petitioner is also required to be granted similar benefit as has been granted to such of the PTA teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008, in terms of Policy decision dated 10.10.2022. 9. Though at this stage, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that in the year 2018, petitioner herein was not appointed on PTA basis, but on SMC basis and as such, after afore period, he cannot claim any benefit under PTA Rules, -7- however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that PTA Policy was discontinued in 2008 itself, but yet petitioner at first instance was permitted to work on PTA basis w.e.f 10.10.2008 till 01.07.2014 and thereafter, he was disengaged for a period of four years due to appointment of a contract teacher. Since in the year 2018, post of Lecturer (Commerce) again fell vacant in the school in question, SMC, which had actually replaced PTA, again engaged the petitioner on SMC basis and since then, petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties, but on a very meager salary/honorarium. Since respondents themselves, vide Policy dated 10.10.2022, directed to extend the Grant- in-Aid Policy, which was closed in the year 2008 and pursuant to such decision, such of the teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008, were granted benefit of Grant-in-Aid Policy and their services were also regularized, petitioner herein, who was also appointed on 10.10.2008 on PTA basis, is also required to be given similar treatment, especially taking note of fact that he has been discharging his duties diligently for more than 13 years. In similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.111 of 2023, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Smt. Shyama Rana held as under:- “7. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner and having carefully gone through the judgment passed by learned Single Judge as well as the writ record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings returned by learned Single Judge. This is more so for the reason that the only -8- argument raised before us on behalf of the State was that the appointment of the respondent-petitioner in the School was not by following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules. In our considered view, the need to appoint teachers like the respondent-petitioner through SMC was a result of inaction on the part on the State to fill up the posts of teachers in the Schools as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Besides this, the school in which the respondent- petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher was not a private school but a government school. The Department acquiesced to the appointment of the teachers through SMC and thereafter when it came to paying the Grant-in-aid etc., the State/Department turned its back by disowning such like teachers on the ground that they were appointed by the SMC. Learned Single Judge rightly held that it was the duty of the Education Department, being functionary of the State, to provide sufficient teachers in the school which was opened by the State. Learned Single Judge rightly held that on account of lapse or failure on the part of the State to provide teachers, SMCs were constrained to appoint persons like the petitioner to cater to the needs of the students and the State allowed the SMCs to make such like appointments, therefore, the act of the State of denying payment of Grant-in-aid and other emoluments equivalent to similarly situated persons as the respondent-petitioner, for the reasons assigned by the Department was unwarranted. We fully concur with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge because, as observed hereinabove, the primary reason for appointment of the petitioner as a Language Teacher through SMC was inaction on the part of the State/Department to appoint regular teacher as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The State cannot be allowed to shun away from its duty to pay to the respondent-petitioner the Grant-in-aid as well as other emoluments as were payable to the similarly situated persons. This is more so for the reason that during the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General could not dispute the fact that the petitioner otherwise was similarly situated as Villam Singh, relying upon the judgment in whose case, the relief was granted to the respondent-petitioner by the learned Single Judge.” 10. In yet another case, Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8692 of 2012, titled as Lata Kumari Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. held that respondents, who are model employers, cannot be permitted to act -9- with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in “Begar”, which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. “9. The matter can be looked from a different angle. Indisputably the petitioner had been appointed and assigned the duties to teach the students and such duties have been continuously performed by her. Then can the respondents, who are model employers, be permitted to act with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in “Begar”, which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 10. The State government is expected to function like a model employer, who is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employee and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case the conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer. 11. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner has not been discharging her duties diligently, honestly and faithfully. Therefore, in such circumstances while demanding her legitimate due by way of grant in aid under the Rules, the petitioner has not asked for the moon. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is merit in the petition and the same is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the grant- in-aid to the petitioner as per the ‘Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher Association Rules, 2006’ from the date of promulgation of the Rules. No costs.” 11. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated 26.05.2018 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.384 of 2017, titled as Renuka Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, wherein State contested the petition by stating in reply that petitioner was appointed by the concerned PTA by passing a resolution Annexure P-2 and therefore, -10- PTA and SMC has to make arrangement from PTA fund for making payment of remuneration to the petitioner as she is not covered and entitled for grant-in-aid under GIA Rules, 2006. In afore case, Coordinate Bench held that in present case, appointment of petitioner has been made by resolution, which has been duly signed by President of PTA, Member Secretary of PTA along with other members. Member Secretary is none else, but the Head Master of the said school. After her appointment till date, she is continuously teaching the students like other similarly situated teachers for last 11 years. It is strange behavior on the part of the State that for the teaching students, petitioner is eligible, but for making payment of grant-in-aid, she is being considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA on behalf of respondents-State. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to continue for more than 11 years. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are reproduced herein below:- “12. In present case, appointment of petitioner has been made by resolution Annexure P-2, which has been duly signed by President PTA, Member Secretary PTA along with other members. Member Secretary is none else, but the Head Master of the said school. After her appointment till date, she is continuously teaching the students like other similarly situated teachers for last 11 years. 13. It is strange behavior on the part of the State that for the teaching students, petitioner is eligible, but for making payment of grant-in-aid, she is being considered ineligible for want of certain formalities to be performed by PTA on behalf of respondents-State. In case her appointment was defective or illegal, she should not have permitted to -11- continue for 11 years. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner for her appointment as Science teacher. 16. Present case is a glaring example of exploitation of unemployed destitute citizens by mighty State. ‘We the people of India’ have submitted ourselves to a Democratic Welfare State. In India, since ancient era, State is always for welfare of citizens being guardian and protector of their rights. Primary duty of State is welfare of people and exploitive actions of rulers have always been deprecated and history speaks that such rulers were always reprimanded and punished. “Rule of Law” was and is Fundamental Principle of “Raj Dharma”. Dream of our forefathers, to establish “Rule of Law” after independence, has emerged in our Constitution. Exploitation by State has never been expected on the part of State as the same can never be termed as ‘Rule of Law’, but the same is arbitrariness which is antithesis of ‘Rule of Law’. To make law, to ameliorate exploitation, is duty of State and in fact State has also framed laws to prevent exploitation. But in present case State is an instrumental in exploitation which is contrary to essence of the Constitution. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P-8) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to sanction Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner for the period she has been working on the post of Lecturer (Commerce) on PTA/School Management Committee basis in Government Senior Secondary School Kunihar, w.e.f 11.05.2018 till date expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from today, failing which petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% from the date such amount fell due. Needless to say, petitioner shall also be considered for regularization, in terms of policy decision taken on 10.10.2022, wherein respondents themselves had decided to release Grant-in-Aid and -12- regularize the services of such of the PTA teachers, who were appointed after 03.01.2008. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 17, 2025 (sunil)