1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11260 of 2024 Date of decision: 24.07.2025 Renuka Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to take over her services w.e.f. 01.04.2012 in accordance with the Policy of the respondent-State dated 20.07.2011 along with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case. 3(i). Petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Lecturer (English) on 12.05.1999 in respondent No.3-S.D. Chand Public Senior Secondary School Ghuggar (Palampur), District Kangra. Her services were regularized on the same -2- post. Smt. Prarthana & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 was instituted by teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.3-School pleading that 95% Grant-in-Aid was not being released to the said school by the State, even though, it was one of the 144 schools to which 95% Grant-in-Aid was admissible from the State. The respondent-State contested the writ petition pleading that respondent No.3 was not one of the 144 school entitled to Grant-in-Aid. Upon considering the entire material, the Court rejected the stand of the respondents that respondent No.3-School was not one of the 144 schools. The said school was held entitled to 95% Grant- in-Aid from the State. The Management of the School, inter alia, was directed to lodge claim with the respondent-State in respect of Grant-in-Aid for the period due. 3(ii). The aforesaid decision was duly implemented by the respondent-State in the year 2011 by releasing the due & admissible Grant-in-Aid. The petitioner, who was also working in respondent No.3-School, however, was not paid Grant-in-Aid. She represented on 26.12.2012 to respondent No.2 seeking Grant-in-Aid. Hearing no response, Ms. Sushma Rana & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & 1 CWP No.27 of 1997 decided on 13.10.2003. -3- Ors.2 was instituted, wherein the present petitioner was also one of the petitioners. Prayer in the writ petition was for releasing Grant-in-Aid. The respondents-State in their reply, filed to the said writ petition, took the stand that petitioners had been appointed in the said school in excess of sanctioned strength laid down in the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, therefore, Grant-in-Aid was not admissible to them. The respondents’ stand was not accepted by the Court. The petitioners were held entitled to Grant-in-Aid. The respondents were directed to release Grant-in-Aid to the petitioners within six weeks from 03.07.2015. The relevant portions from the decision are as under:- “3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a detailed reply. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondents is that the strength of the School was in excess of the sanctioned strength laid down under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, which became applicable from 01.01.1997. The same has been reproduced in the reply, which reads as under: “SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS (i.e. with +1 AND +2 Classes) Seven lecturers for schools running only Humanities Group provided the number of students is not less than 150 in both the classes, Additional 3 lecturers for Science Group: Provided the number of students studying in the science subject is not less than 50 in both the classes: HIGH SCHOOLS HAVING ONLY 2 CLASSES i.e. IX & X 1. Trained Graduate (Science) One 2. Trained Graduate (Arts) One 3. O.T. or L.T. One (if number of student in both the classes in 50 or more) 2 CWP No.4196 of 2013 decided on 03.07.2015. -4- 4. Clerk One 5. Peon One (If total number of students in both the classes is 75 or more) MIDDLE SCHOOLS HAVING CLASSES VI TO VIII 1. Trained Graduate (Science) One 2. Trained Graduate(Arts) One 3. O.T. or L.T. One. (If number of student in middle classes is 90 or more) 1. Arts & Craft Teachers One (Only when number of students learning the subject is not less than 20) 1. P.T.I. One 2. Peon One (Where the number of students is not less than 100) PRIMARY SCHOOLS JBT Teachers Two For Strength up to 60 students. Thereafter one additional JBT for addition of each slab of 1 to 40 students.” 4. Petitioners filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-State. Petitioners have highlighted that similarly situated 5 persons, who were appointed in excess of the sanctioned strength in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla, were granted the grant-in aid. Petitioners have placed on record the copy of the details obtained under the Right to Information Act, which is at page No. 163 of the paper-book. It is clear from the material placed on record that in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit), there are four TGT (Arts), two TGT (Non-medical), one O.T. and one DM and Tisha Rani TGT (Arts) and Amrit Lal Peon have retired. They have already been paid arrears. Similarly, in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla, there are three TGT (Arts), one TGT (Science), one L.T., one O.T., one D.M., one Peon and one Ram Dulari TGT (Arts) has retired. They have also been paid the salary under the grant-in-aid. The petitioners have been discriminated against by the respondents by not releasing the grant-inaid to them, though the similarly situated persons, who were teaching in D. A. V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla have been granted the grant-in-aid. The equals have been treated unequally. The teachers in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla have been appointed in excess of the strength laid down under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, which became applicable from -5- 1.1.1997. The petitioners were in possession of the essential educational qualifications and have been appointed under the prescribed manner. The respondent-School was one of the 144 privately run Schools, which were held entitled to grant-in-aid as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others case (supra). The respondents have also not implemented the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 27 of 1997, dated 13th October, 2003, despite the orders passed in Execution Petition No. 834 of 2004, dated 18.04.2011. Action of the respondents not releasing the grant-inaid to the petitioners on the analogy of D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla, is unreasonable, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioners on the analogy of D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and S.D. Senior Secondary School, Shimla within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is released. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. No costs.” 3(iii) Respondents instituted State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ms. Sushma Rana & Ors.3 against the decision of the aforesaid writ petition. The main contention urged before the Hon’ble Division Bench was Grant-in-Aid could not be released to the writ petitioners as the staff strength of the said school was in excess of the staff strength approved under Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997. Respondents’ stand was turned down and the LPA was dismissed as under:- “2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 3 LPA No.88 of 2016 decided on 22.09.2022. -6- 8. In fact, grant-in-aid could not be released to respondents No.1 to 8. The strength of the school was in excess of the sanctioned strength laid down under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, which became applicable from 01.01.1997. xx xx xx 6. Respondents No.1 to 8 had filed the writ petition, seeking a direction to the State to release grant-in-aid. By basing reliance on the decision of this Court in CWP No.27 of 1997, titled Smt. Prarthana and others Versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 13th October, 2003 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others case (supra), the learned Single Judge, after going through the material placed on record, has held that respondents No.1 to 8 were in possession of the essential educational qualifications and have been appointed after following due procedure. Respondent No.9-school was one of the 144 privately run schools, which were held entitled to grant-in-aid. So far as respondent No.9 is concerned, the judgment passed in CWP No.27 of 1997 was with regard to the same school. 7. In this factual background, the learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly allowed the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 8 and the order dated 3rd June, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.” 3(iv). No further challenge was laid by the respondent- State to the aforesaid decision. The petitioner, however, was still not paid Grant-in-Aid. Sushma Rana & Ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta & Ors.4 was filed seeking implementation of the aforesaid decisions and praying for release of Grant-in- Aid. The present petitioner was also one of the petitioners in the said contempt petition. During pendency of the contempt petition, respondents released Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner from due 4 COPC No.300 of 2017 decided on 02.09.2024. -7- date upto 31.03.2012. Further Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner for the period of service rendered thereafter was not released on the ground that Government had taken conscious policy decision on 20.07.2011 to take over all 95% aided private schools either with or without their moveable & immoveable assets and also, the services of all their aided employees, who were appointed as per approved staffing patten of H.P. Non-Government Institution (Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 1997; The services of the petitioner could not be taken over, as her appointment had been made in violation of the staff strength approved in the 1997 Rules, therefore, Grant-in-Aid had been restricted in favour of the petitioner till 31.03.2012 as Grant-in-Aid has been stopped w.e.f. 01.04.2012 in view of taking over policy of the State dated 20.07.2011. The grounds urged for the respondent-State were disputed by the petitioner. Prayer was made that for release of Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner after 31.03.2012 & also for her absorption in the respondent-State, she be permitted to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, the contempt petition was closed with liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. -8- 4. Consideration. 4(i). The petitioner now seeks directions to the respondents to take over her services w.e.f. 01.04.2012 in accordance with Govt. Policy dated 20.07.2011 along with all consequential benefits. 4(ii). Respondents’ policy dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P-7) provides as under for taking over the services of employees both teaching and non-teaching of the 95% aided schools in receipt of Grant-in-Aid:- “(1) The services of only those employees both teaching & non-teaching will be taken over, who are paid from the GIA received from the Government at the time of take over. The services of other employees will not bed taken over.” In terms of above clause, services of only those employees both teaching and non-teaching were to be taken over who were in receipt of Grant-in-Aid by the State Government at the time of takeover. This condition is irrespective of the fact as to whether the school has been transferred along with moveable and immoveable assets or otherwise. The petitioner completely satisfies the above condition. She was a teaching employee of the respondent No.3-School. The said school has been held to be in receipt of -9- Grant-in-Aid from the respondent-State in Smt. Prarthana1. Further, the petitioner was in receipt of Grant-in-Aid from the respondents at the time of takeover of the school. The services of teaching/non-teaching staff of respondent No.3- School were taken over on 31.03.2012. Petitioner has been paid Grant-in-Aid by the respondents till 31.03.2012. Petitioner certainly qualifies for taking over of her services by the respondent-State in terms of their own policy dated 20.07.2011. 4(iii). Respondents’ defense for not taking over the petitioner’s services on the ground that she was appointed in respondent No.3-School in excess of the staff strength sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, is misconceived at this stage. The same ground was urged by the respondents in Ms. Sushma Rana² while opposing the petitioners’ prayer for release of Grant-in-Aid, but it was rejected. The writ petition (Ms. Sushma Rana²) was allowed on 03.07.2015 and the LPA preferred against the decision was also dismissed on 22.09.2022. The respondents accepted the decision and it was not challenged any further. Grant-in-Aid was accordingly released to the petitioner during the pendency of the contempt petition in Sushma -10- Rana⁴. A ground already rejected by the Court cannot now be raised to oppose the petitioner’s claim for taking over her services. Raising of said plea is barred by principles of res judicata. Further, once the petitioner has been held entitled to Grant-in-Aid and once it has been released in her favour and given the admitted position that she was in receipt of Grant-in-Aid on the date the services of teaching/ non-teaching employees of respondent No.3–School were taken over, the consequence of taking over the petitioner’s services by the respondent-State necessarily flows from the release of Grant-in-Aid in her favour. 4(iv). It would be apposite to notice here that the petitioner has kept the litigation torch alive w.e.f. the year 2013 onwards. Ms. Sushma Rana² was instituted in the year 2013. The decision thereof was tested by the respondents in Ms. Sushma Rana3, which attained finality on 22.09.2022. The contempt petition (Ms. Sushma Rana4) preferred by the petitioner in the year 2017, was disposed of on 02.09.2024. Consequently, this writ petition was instituted on 14.11.2024. Petitioner had been diligently taking recourse to legal remedies against the action of the respondents. -11- 5. In view of above, I find merit in petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to takeover the services of the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 20.07.2011 with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 24th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)