2025:HHC:45045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.4131 of 2020 Decided on: 12.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Savita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vidush Chauhan and Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Savita Devi, had initially filed Original Application No.1434 of 2018 before State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood re-transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.4131 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs :- “(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the person working against the applicant to some other place and re-engage the applicant will all consequential benefits. (ii). That the applicant may kindly be allowed to work as Lecturer Political Science at Govt. Sr. Sec. School Nangal Khurd Distt. Una on PTA grant-in-aid basis with all consequential benefits.” 2025:HHC:45045 - 2 - FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that she was engaged as a Lecturer [Mathematics] under PTA in Government Senior Secondary School Nangal- Khurd, District Una, (H.P) on 26.08.2006. It is averred that pursuant to complaint filed by one Sh. Yash Pal Singh, the services of the petitioner were dis-engaged on 26.09.2008. 2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the termination, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority-cum- Additional District Magistrate and thereafter filed a writ petition No. CWP No.2125 of 2009 and this Court remanded back the matter for fresh decision by the Inquiry Committee. It is further averred that based on the Government Notification, the petitioner approached Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Una, by way of an Appeal filed on 10.07.2014 [Annexure A-1] which was decided on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1] whereby, the Appellate Authority directed the State Authorities that it will be open for the State-Authorities to re-engage the petitioner, in view of the fact that the complaint filed by Yash 2025:HHC:45045 - 3 - Pal Singh, stands withdrawn. Consequently, the termination of the petitioner on 26.09.2008 was set aside. In this background, the instant petition has been filed with a prayer that since the date of passing of orders by Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Una on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1], the respondents have neither re-engaged nor granted the admissible Grant-in-Aid as per the norms to the petitioner, which is unfair, arbitrary and illegal. STAND OF RESPONDENTS -STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 17.04.2018, the Respondents-State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 29.10.2018, of Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that after passing of orders by the Appellate Authority on 10.10.2014 [Annexure A-1], the case of the petitioner for re-engagement as Lecturer [Mathematics] in the same School could not be considered in view of the fact that a regularly appointed Teacher-Respondent No.4 had been posted as Lecturers [Mathematics] in place of the 2025:HHC:45045 - 4 - petitioner. It is averred that an Interim Order dated 28.10.2013 was passed in CWP No.7483 of 2013 not to dislocate the regularly appointed incumbent by PTA appointees. It is further averred that the issue as to whether the regularly appointed Teachers could be replaced by PTA appointed teachers was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2813 of 2017, 2814 of 2017 and 2815 of 2017. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that pursuant to the Government Notification dated 26.05.2014 [Annexure A-2], the petitioner was to prefer an appeal/re-appeal within a period of one month but petitioner did not file the same, within the stipulated period. 3(ii). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent No.4 who was posted as Lecturer [Mathematics] in place of the petitioner in Government Senior Secondary School Nangal Khurd, District Una has now been shifted to some other school. STATEMENT BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL: 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on Instructions, states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the claim of the petitioner is 2025:HHC:45045 - 5 - considered by the Competent Authority in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Antim Mahajan versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No.3242 of 2020, decided on 25.03.2025 and the judgment passed by this Court in Hans Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWPOA No.4078 of 2020, decided on 12.09.2025 whereby, in similar situations, the direction for re-engagement was given, where the services of PTA appointed teachers were disengaged and who were permitted to file an appeal/re-appeal pursuant to the Government Orders, were subsequently re-engaged by the department. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner is similarly placed with the petitioners in cases of Antim Mahajan and Hans Raj (supra) and therefore their cases may be examined in the light of these judgments. [Statement Taken on Record]. 5. Per Contra, Learned State Counsel submits that the question of parity of the petitioner vis-à-vis of Antim Mahajan and Hans Raj (supra) needs to be verified and examined by the Departmental 2025:HHC:45045 - 6 - Authorities. 6. Heard, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents-State. DIRECTIONS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and leaving all questions open and in view of the statement made by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities shall examine the case of the petitioner for re-engagement as Lecturer [Mathematics] and for release of admissible salary under grant-in-aid, in the light of the judgment(s) in the cases of Antim Mahajan and Hans Raj (supra); (ii). Upon consideration, in case, the petitioner is found to be similarly situated, the respondents shall take consequential action in the matter; (iii). Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the rival claims/ contentions which are left to be considered/examined by the State Authorities, in accordance with law; (iv). Let necessary consideration be undertaken by Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh on or before 31.01.2026; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. 2025:HHC:45045 - 7 - In aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 12th December, 2025 [himani]