Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3782 (HP)

Monika Sharma v. State of H. P.

2025-10-10

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Petitioner, Monika Sharma, has come up before this Court seeking the following relief :- “(i) that the respondent state may be directed to release to the applicant grant in aid from the date the applicant is serving in the respondent No.3 school and to pay arrears alongwith interest @ 12% per annum within such time as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Precisely, the case is that after passing of Graduation in 1998 and Bachelors in Education [B.Ed in 2012], the petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in respondent No.3-School i.e. S.D. Chand Public Senior Secondary School, Ghuggar, which was being run by respondent No.4-Goswami Snatan Dharam Education Society, Baijnath. It is averred that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis and thereafter vide order dated 25.05.2011 her services were regularized by the School Authorities which is clear from Annexure A-1. It is averred that 42 teaching and non-teaching incumbents filed a CWP No.27 of 1997 titled as Prathana & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 13.10.2003 [Annexure P-2], whereby. the writ petition was disposed of with the directions contained in Paras (a) to (e) of the aforesaid judgment, mandating the respondents to examine the claim of petitioners therein for admissibility and release of grant-in-aid who were employees of Respondent No.3-Institution, which was one of the 144 Institutions to whom grant-in-aid was admissible in terms of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1995 [4] SCC 507 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs Himachal Pradesh State Recognized and Aided College Managing Committee & Others. It is further averred that pursuant to the directions dated 13.10.2003, the incumbents namely Prathana and others were extended the grant-in-aid by the respondents. In above background, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking directions for considering her case for grant-in-aid and for extending the admissible grant-in-aid as extended to other teachers, namely, Prathana and others, as referred to above. STAND OF RESPONDENTS IN REPLY: 3. The Director of Elementary Education filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 19.10.2016, with the stand that the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Institution [Grant-In-Aid Rules 1987], came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and the grant-in-aid is inadmissible to petitioner, for the reason, that petitioner was appointed without seeking approval of the department as well as without following the due process as laid down in GIA Rules. Moreover, it is further averred in the reply that since petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee i.e. Respondents No.3 and 4 at their own level, therefore, the grant-in-aid could not be released to the petitioner. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. The stand in the Reply-Affidavit was rebutted by petitioner by filing rejoinder, stating therein, that as per the Grant-In-Aid Rules, the aforesaid Respondent No.3-School had seven sanctioned strength of primary teachers and the petitioner being the 7th incumbent, deserves to be extended the grant-in-aid. So far as the plea with respect to non-adherence to procedure is concerned, it is stated in the rejoinder that petitioner was fully eligible and was appointed as primary teacher by the Managing Committee of respondents No.3 and 4- Institution after following due process and therefore, the plea of respondents is not tenable. Moreover, reference has been made to the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.4196 of 2013 titled as Sushma Rana & Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, asserting that similar plea set up by Respondents-State Authorities that persons who were not appointed by following due process or were appointed over and above the sanctioned strength, were also to be extended the benefit of grant-in-aid. It is further averred that the judgment in the case of Sushma Rana [supra] has been assailed by State Authorities in LPA No.88 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Sushma Rana & Ors. and LPA No.88 of 2016 has been decided on 22.09.2022, whereby Letters Patent Appeal filed by State Authorities has been dismissed and orders passed by the Coordinate Single Bench in the case of Sushma Rana [supra], have been upheld in the following terms:- “2. The respondent No. 4-School was initially commenced as recognized up to primary level and in the year, 1983, it was upgraded and recognized up to middle level. Thereafter, in the year 1986, the School was upgraded and recognized up to High School level and the same was upgraded and recognized to Senior Secondary level in the year, 1992. The respondent No. 4-School was initially commenced as recognized up to primary level and in the year, 1983, it was upgraded and recognized up to middle level. Thereafter, in the year 1986, the School was upgraded and recognized up to High School level and the same was upgraded and recognized to Senior Secondary level in the year, 1992. This School was one of 144 privately run Schools, who were entitled to Government aid to the extent of 95% of the expenditure incurred by them in running the School in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Himachal Pradesh State Recognized and Aided School Managing Committee and others. An Execution Petition No. 834 of 2004 was also filed before this Court. The Registrar (Sub. Judiciary & Judicial) passed a detailed order on 18.04.2011. Petitioners made representations on 26.12.2012. It was also stated that they were petitioners in CWP No. 2319 of 2012. However, the fact of the matter is that the grant-in-aid was not released qua the petitioners. 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) 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. 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 SCHOOL SJBT 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 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-in-aid 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 inS.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 1.1.1997. The petitioners were in possession of the essential educational qualifications and have been appointed under the prescribed manner. The equals have been treated unequally. The teachers in D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Una (Middle Unit) and inS.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 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-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, 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. 4(i). The judgment in case of Sushma Rana [supra] against which LPA No.88 of 2016 also stands dismissed on 22.09.2022, reads 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 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. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that petitioners/respondents No.1 to 8 were in possession of the essential educational qualifications and had been appointed after following the due procedure. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that petitioners/respondents No.1 to 8 were in possession of the essential educational qualifications and had been appointed after following the due procedure. The case of respondents No.1 to 8 was covered by the decision given by 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, wherein it was held as under:- “Since as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. V. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others (supra), the respondent No.6, being one of the 144 schools entitled to grant-in-aid, the present petition is allowed and it is directed as under:- (a) Respondents No.5 and 6 shall within one month from today lodge a claim with respondent the Secretary (Education) to the State Government in respect of the grant-in- aid for the period it is due, supported by all the relevant documents/record etc. and they shall further make available such accounts/record and documents as may be required from them for the purpose of determination of their claim; (b) Respondent No.1, through its Secretary (Education) shall dispose of the claims of respondents No. 5 and 6 and shall pay the arrears of such grant-in-aid as may be found due within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the claims; (c) Respondents No.5 and 6 on the receipt of the amount of grant-in-aid from respondents No. 1 to 4 shall disburse and pay the salary and other allowances to the petitioners at par with the members of the staff of the Government schools within one month thereof; (d) On the failure of respondents No. 5 and 6 to lodge the claim in terms of (a) above, they shall be liable to pay the salary and other allowances to the petitioners out of their own funds at par with the members of the staff of Government Schools; (e) Liberty reserved to the parties to apply to this Court for such other and further direction, clarification, modification etc. as may be found just and proper.” 4. as may be found just and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.9 and 10 has also opposed the appeal and has submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 to 8, by basing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 507, titled State of H.P. Versus H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committees and others,, wherein it was held as under:- “17. It is high time that the State must accept its responsibility to extend free education to the children upto the age of fourteen. Right to education is equally guaranteed to the children who are above the age of fourteen, but they cannot enforce the same unless the economic capacity and development of the State permits the enforcement of the same. The State must endeavour to review and increase the budget-allocation under the head "Education", The Union of India must also consider to increase the percentage of allocation of funds for "Education" out of the Gross National Product. 18. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the imposition of the maximum limit for the disbursement of grant-in-aid to the respondents was arbitrary and unjustified in the facts of the present case. As mentioned above, the respondent-schools are recognised, aided and are under deep and pervasive control of the State Government. The Government is under an obligation to provide the grant-in-aid to the respondent- schools as envisaged under the scheme of the Rules. The High Court has directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay 95 per cent grant-in-aid with effect from February, 1988. The High Court judgment was delivered on 9-9-1992. We modify the High Court judgment to the extent that the enhanced grant-in-aid be paid to the aided schools with effect from 1-4-1993.” 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that respondent school in question was also one of the privately run schools before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have been held entitled for grant-in-aid. 6. Respondents No.1 to 8 had filed the writ petition, seeking a direction to the State to release grant-in-aid. Learned counsel has further submitted that respondent school in question was also one of the privately run schools before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which have been held entitled for grant-in-aid. 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. 8. Accordingly, the letters patent appeal is dismissed.” 4(ii). In addition to this, Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in CWP No.7851 of 2022, titled as Sangeeta & Ors. vs State of HP & Others, which read as under:- “2. Certain undisputed facts, necessary for adjudication of the case at hand are that petitioners herein joined as Class-IV employees on 31.3.2006, 30.4.2003 and 26.2.1993, respectively, in the respondent-School, as is evident from letters of appointment placed on record as Annexure P-1 to P-3. Though, initially, aforesaid school was privately managed, but subsequently, came to be included in the list of 144 privately run schools, which were subsequently held entitled to government aid to the extent of 95% in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. H.P. State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees and Ors (1995) 4 SCC 507 . 3. 3. Though, on account of its inclusion in the list of 144 privately run schools, as detailed herein above, employees working in the school including petitioners had become entitled to government aid to the extent of 95%, but such prayer of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that their appointment was in excess of the sanctioned strength. Since petitioners had become eligible for grant-in-aid after inclusion of 144 privately run schools coupled with the fact that similarly situate persons were granted similar relief and yet their prayer was not paid any heed, they were compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs as have been reproduced herein above. 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed the reply, wherein facts as have been noticed herein above, are not in dispute, rather stand admitted. Claim of the petitioners, as put forth in the instant petition, has been sought to be refuted on the ground that petitioners were given appointment in excess of the sanctioned strength and they were not appointed in accordance with the rules. Besides above, it has been further claimed by the respondents that at no point of time, names of the petitioners were recommended by the management of the school for extending benefit of government aid to the extent of 95%. 8. Since in Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, which are being pressed into service, there is no specific procedure provided for selection of employees, be it class-III or Class IV, plea sought to be raised with regard to non- adherence to the procedure, is not available to the respondents. 9. In similar, facts and circumstance, Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2019, passed in CMP(M) No. 146 of 2019 and LPA No. 37 of 2019, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Ram Swaroop and Ors., negated the aforesaid plea set up by the respondents. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “3. There is no quarrel on facts that the respondent was appointed as O.T. (Shastri) on 2.6.2003 in Bilasa Senior Secondary School, Bilaspur which received more than 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. He, however, was denied the benefit of Grant-in-aid Scheme on the plea that he was appointed by the School Management Committee without following due procedure and that the appointment was made without wide publicity of the post. He, however, was denied the benefit of Grant-in-aid Scheme on the plea that he was appointed by the School Management Committee without following due procedure and that the appointment was made without wide publicity of the post. The objection has been repelled by the learned Single Judge after taking notice of the fact that no such condition was contemplated under the Scheme and that the respondent was working for more than a decade. 4. The instant appeal is accompanied with CMP(M) No.146 of 2019, seeking condonation of delay of 1 year, 10 months and 24 days in filing the appeal. It may be noticed that the time limit to file the Letters Patent Appeal is 30 days only. It is averred in the application that the certified copy of the order pronounced by the learned Single Judge on 21st March, 2017 was delivered on 18th August, 2017 and that the matter remained pending before the Law Department seeking opinion whether or not the appeal should be filed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out that the appellant applied for the certified copy on 9th August, 2017 i.e. almost after 5 months of the pronouncement of the judgment and by that time the time limit to file the appeal had already expired. There is no whisper in the application as to why the Law Department kept on sitting over the file and did not give timely opinion. The application thus is bereft of any reasons much less justifiable explanation for the inordinate delay. The application is accordingly dismissed and so would be the fate of accompanying appeal. Even on merits, as observed earlier, no case for interference in appeal is made out.” 10. Similarly, this Court finds that another ground set up by the respondents with regard to excess of sanctioned strength stands adjudicated vide judgment dated 3.7.2015, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4196 of 2013, titled Sushma Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Aforesaid judgment has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.9.2016 passed in LPA No. 88 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Sushma Rana and Ors. 11. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4196 of 2013 (supra), having taken note of the fact that teachers in DAV Sr. Aforesaid judgment has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.9.2016 passed in LPA No. 88 of 2016, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Sushma Rana and Ors. 11. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4196 of 2013 (supra), having taken note of the fact that teachers in DAV Sr. Sec. School Una (Middle Unit) and S.D. Senior Secondary, School, Shimla were appointed in excess of the strength laid down under the Grantin-Aid Rules, but yet were extended benefit of Grant-in-Aid rules, held that petitioners, who were in possession of essential qualification at that time, cannot be discriminated on the ground that their appointment was in excess of sanctioned strength. Coordinate Bench of this Court specifically held that once respondent-School was one of the 144 privately run schools, which were held entitled to Grant-in-Aid as per judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. H.P. State Recognized & Aided Schools Managing Committees and Ors (1995) 4 SCC 507 , there was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to deny similar benefit to the petitioners on account of their being in excess to the sanctioned strength. Para-4 of CWP No. 4196 of 2013 reads as under: “4. Petitioners filed a detailed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents-State. Petitioners have highlighted that similarly situated 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. 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-in-aid 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 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-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, is unreasonable, arbitrary and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 12. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that 144 schools, as detailed herein above, were held entitled to Grant-in-Aid to the extent of 95%, meaning thereby, all employees working, at the relevant time, were liable to be extended such benefit and plea sought to be raised with regard to appointment given in excess to the sufficient strength, is not be available to the department. 13. 13. Plea of delay and laches sought to be raised by the learned Additional Advocate General also deserves outright rejection for the reason that record clearly reveals that prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioners, besides making representations, had also approached the competent court of law by way of CWP No. 27 of 1997 and CWP No. 2319 of 2012, coupled with the fact that on account of non-payment of Grant-in-Aid, qua which petitioners had become entitled in the year 1997, continuous financial loss is being caused to them. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petition is allowed and respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to release due and admissible grant to respondents No. 4 and 5 from the time, same had become due to the petitioners. Needful in terms of the aforesaid directions shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of with pending applications, if any.” 5. Based on the mandate in case of Sushma Rana and Sangeeta [supra], Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the case of petitioner is a kin to that of the petitioners in these judgments. It is further submitted that these judgments have attended finality and have also been implemented by respondents. The assertion of Learned Counsel for petitioner is not disputed by Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4, on this aspect also. However, Learned State Counsel feigns ignorance of the implementation of the judgments, in case of Sushma Rana and Sangeeta, as referred to above and states that the matter needs to be examined qua implementation and extension of similar benefits to the petitioner, in case, the petitioner is found to be similarly placed. 6. Heard Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 2-State and Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for Respondents No.3 and 4. 7. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case the respondents are directed to examine the claim of petitioner, for parity in treatment, in terms of judgment, in case of Sushma Rana and Sangeeta [supra] in a time bound manner [Statement taken on Record]. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned Respondents’ Counsels also. DIRECTIONS: 8. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned Respondents’ Counsels also. DIRECTIONS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the statement made by Learned Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, this Court disposes of the instant petition, with the following directions:- (i) Respondent No. 2-Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh is directed to examine the case of petitioner for release of grant-in-aid in terms of judgment in case of Sushma Rana [CWP No.4196 of 2013] decided on 03.06.2015, upheld in LPA No.88 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Sushma Rana & Ors., decided on 22.09.2022 and judgment in case of Sangeeta [CWP No.7851 of 2022] decided on 21.03.2024, within a period of six weeks from today; (ii) Upon examining the matter, in case, petitioner is found to be similarly placed vis- à-vis the incumbents in Prathana and Others [CWP No.27 of 1997] [Annexure P-2] and the judgment(s) in Sushma Rana and Sangeeta [supra] then, respondents shall extend admissible grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% to the respondents No.3 and 4- Institution and the resultant salary accruing therefrom to petitioner; (iii) Upon consideration the Respondent No.2 shall release the admissible benefits in terms of above directions to the petitioner on or before 31.01.2025; (iv) Needless to say that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. All questions are left open in view of the Statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner in instant proceedings. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.