2025:HHC:42076 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4499 of 2020 Date of Decision: 5.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Madan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and the respondents to pay Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner in view of the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 from due date with arrears and interest thereupon.” 2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner, who otherwise now stands regularized against the post of Shastri in the Education Department, was initially appointed on PTA basis pursuant to resolution dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Government Senior Secondary School 2025:HHC:42076 - 2 - Partha, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Though petitioner has been continuously imparting education to the students in the school detailed herein above from the date of his initial appointment, but fact remains that despite there being repeated requests, no Grant-in-Aid was released, as a result thereof, petitioner herein was compelled to impart education to the students in the subject of Shastri on the meager salary of Rs. 5000/-, till the year 2021, whereafter his services were converted into government contract. After completion of three years service on contract, petitioner herein now stands regularized against the post of Shastri and at present is posted at Government high School, Samatar, Chamba. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since prior to his services being regularized, petitioner worked as Shastri for more than 15 years on PTA basis, necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondents to release Grant-in-Aid qua the afore period. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein though factum with regard to petitioner’s appointment on PTA basis vide resolution dated 17.9.2009 has been not disputed, but an attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner as put forth in the petition on the ground that petitioner was not paid salary out of the PTA funds, rather expenditure qua his salary was being borne by SNS Foundation. 2025:HHC:42076 - 3 - Alongwith reply, certain documents have been placed on record suggestive of the fact that principal of the school concerned expressed his gratitude to SNS Foundation for providing financial help/salary of some of the employees including the petitioner. It is not in dispute that pursuant to petitioner’s having served on PTA basis, his services were initially converted into government contract and thereafter, were regularized after completion of two years contractual services. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that petitioner herein after his having possessed requisite qualification for the post of Shastri was appointed as Shastri at Government Senior Secondary School Partha, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on PTA basis on 17.9.2009. With effect from afore date, petitioner kept on discharging duties in the school concerned on PTA basis till the year 2021 when his services were taken over on the government contract. On 3.10.2023, services of the petitioner came to be regularized. 6. Though with effect from the year 2008, Grant-in-Aid scheme was discontinued, but yet petitioner herein was permitted to continue, rather department of its own in terms of policy decision firstly converted the services of the petitioner from PTA to contract and thereafter, his services were regularized. Since it is apparent from the pleadings that petitioner had been sincerely teaching the students of the school concerned in the subject of Sanskrit, for such a long period, he cannot be denied due and admissible benefits. 2025:HHC:42076 - 4 - 7. Otherwise also, it is not in dispute, rather stands admitted that in the year 2022, government extended Grant-in-Aid policy, which was discontinued in the year 2008, as a result thereof, services of number of PTA appointed teachers were regularized. In terms of afore policy, even such persons who were appointed after 3.1.2008 were also granted benefit of PTA policy, as a result thereof, they not only received Grant-in-Aid, but their services were also regularized. 8. Since petitioner herein had been working on PTA basis. With effect from 17.9.2009, and in the aforesaid capacity, he worked continuously till the year 2021, whereafter his services were converted to contract coupled with the fact that now petitioner stands regularized against the post in question, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Grant-in-Aid is required to be released in favour of the petitioner qua the period, he worked in School on PTA basis. 9. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that in the year 2017, petitioner herein was not appointed on PTA basis, but by some Foundation as such, qua afore period, he cannot claim any benefit under PTA Rules, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that bare perusal of resolution dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) placed on record clearly reveals that petitioner herein was appointed on PTA basis. True, it is, that documents annexed with the reply suggest that SNS Foundation 2025:HHC:42076 - 5 - had been providing financial help to the school in question, but that cannot be a ground to claim that initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 2009 was not by made by the PTA of the school concerned. Once petitioner was appointed on PTA basis, it was the duty of PTA to arrange funds, especially when Grant-in-Aid was not being released by the Government. In the afore peculiar facts and circumstances, Parent Teacher Association of the school concerned must have approached SNS Foundation for financial help, which besides providing funds qua the salary of the petitioner also provided funds for salary of many other employees as detailed in Annexure R-1. 10. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, argued that no request was ever made by the Government to afore Foundation to provide fund, but once it is not in dispute that with the help and aid of the funds provided by the aforesaid Foundation, petitioner alongwith other 5-6 persons was discharging his duty coupled with the fact that initial appointment of the petitioner was based upon the resolution passed by PTA, aforesaid ground, which is otherwise totally absurd, cannot be accepted. 11. Needless to say, very object and purpose of appointing teachers on PTA/ SMC basis is/was to meet the shortage of teachers in schools when government was unable to provide regular teachers. Since studies of students in those schools were suffering, decision was taken to appoint the teachers on PTA/SMC basis. In each and every case, respondents had been taking the ground that 2025:HHC:42076 - 6 - salary/honorarium is paid to the PTA/SMC teachers out of their funds. 12. This Court can well appreciate that it may not be very easy for PTAs/SMCs to arrange funds to meet the expenditure qua salaries of teachers appointed on PTA/SMC basis and to ensure release of regular salary/honorarium, they were compelled to approach SNS Foundation. Had government provided requisite funds to PTAs under PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules, there was otherwise no occasion for PTA or Principal of the school concerned to approach SNS Foundation for release of funds. Be that as it may, once it is not in dispute that petitioner had been working on PTA basis from 17.9.2009, coupled with the fact that now his services stand regularized, prayer made by the petitioner for release of Grant-in-Aid for the period, he worked on PTA basis, deserves to be accepted.. 13. Leaving everything aside, once respondents themselves vide policy dated 10.10.2022, directed to extend Grant-in-Aid policy, which was closed in the year 2008 and pursuant to such decision, number of teachers appointed after 3.1.2008 stand granted benefit of policy and their services were also regularized, petitioner herein, who admittedly was appointed on PTA basis is required to be given similar treatment, especially taking note of the fact that he has been discharging his duties diligently for more than 11 years 2025:HHC:42076 - 7 - 14. 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 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- 2025:HHC:42076 - 8 - 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.” 15. 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 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 2025:HHC:42076 - 9 - 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.” 16. 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, PTA and SMC have 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 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 was continuously teaching the students 2025:HHC:42076 - 10 - 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 completed 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 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 2025:HHC:42076 - 11 - 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.” 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above and law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to sanction Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner for the period he has been working on the post of Shastri on PTA basis in Government Senior Secondary School Partha w.e.f. 17.9.2009, till the year 2021 when his services were converted in to contract, preferably within three months from today, failing which petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% from the date such amount fell due. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. December 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge