IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 537 of 2024 Decided on: 7th April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Rajni Devi ....Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of the decision in Rajni Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.2 In the aforesaid decision, following directions were issued to the respondents:- “6. Since, the case of the petitioner involves identical question, therefore, there cannot be any discrimination or disparity in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, Order dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set aside and the petitioner is held entitled to Grant-in-Aid. Further, the respondents are directed to issue Grant-in- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.3738 of 2022 decided on 22.04.2024 - 2 - Aid in respect of the petitioner from the date of her appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order.” 2. Several orders were passed in this contempt petition from time to time. During the course of hearing today, learned Assistant Advocate General has placed on record office communication dated 01.03.2025 from the Deputy Director Elementary Education, Kangra at Dharamshala addressed to the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, stating as under:- “Respected Sir, With Reference to office your letter No. EDN-H (E-III)B(6) 1/CWP No.- 3738/2022-KGR Dated 13 Feb 2025, On the subject cited above. In this context it is submitted that the petitioner has been engaged temporary teacher as Art and Craft in GSSS Pahra,on dated 01/06/2010 Whereas the PTA engagement has been stopped on dated 03/01/2008, further in compliance with Secretary Education office letter No. EDN- A-Chha(1) 1/2024, dated 02/01/2025, further Endst No. EDN-H(Ele.)(III)B(6) CWP No. 3738/2022 Rajni Devi dated 2/01/2025. The petitioner has been treated as SMC Appointee hence SMC GIA worth Rs 478937 (Four Lakh seventy eight thousand nine hundred thirty seven only) has been paid to the petitioner for the period of August 2014 to December 2024 vide bill number 100105 dated 08/01/2025 (Treasury Voucher No. 000317 date 24/01/2025). Since the appointment of Petitioner has not been made under PTA (GIA) Policy therefore the claim of the petitioner: cannot be considered as PTA(GIA) Policy.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not - 3 - dispute that the petitioner has now been paid an amount of Rs. 4,78,937/- towards grant-in-aid as an SMC appointee. Learned counsel, however, submits that petitioner’s appointment was under the PTA Policy, therefore, she was required to be paid grant-in-aid under PTA (GIA) policy. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of her surviving grievances. 4. The directions issued to the respondents in the judgment in question were to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner from the date of her appointment. The grant-in- aid, now stands released to her. Therefore, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, as may be available to her in law, for redressal of her surviving grievances. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 7, 2025 R.Atal