( 2026:HHC:21910 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.6627 of 2019 Decided on: 03.06.2026 Uploaded on: 04.06.2026 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner: Dr.Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.B.M.Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned letter dated 20.08.2015 Annexure A-8 may kindly be set aside and quashed and the respondent department may be directed to declare the applicant as teacher in view of the Apex Court judgment in case titled P.S. Ramamohanan Rao Versus A.P. Agriculture University (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3433). (b) That the respondent may be directed to release the benefit of revision of UGC pay scale since 01.01.2006 alongwith entire arrears and interest accrued thereupon till its payment.” 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 29.09.2000 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 2 (Annexure A-2) to the temporary post of Weight Lifting Coach in the respondent-University at a starting pay of Rs.8000/- in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 (UGC) plus allowances as admissible from time to time. It has been averred that in spite of creation of one post of Weight Lifting Coach in the respondent-University in the year 1998, the said post was not incorporated in the statutes, as teacher, framed by the respondent-University. As per clause 4.1 of the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalala Statutes, 1988 (in short “Statutes”), the teachers have been classified. In the respondent-University except for the post of Weight Lifting Coach in all other posts which were enjoying the UGC scale were considered in the category of teachers. It has further been pleaded that as per Notification dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure A-3), the Executive Council of Himachal Pradesh University has treated the Coaches as Lecturers for all intents and purposes and they have been given the regular scale from July, 1993 with all benefits. It has been averred that as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another, AIR 1997 SC 3433, it has been held that the Coaches are also discharging teaching work as the Coaches have also to teach several skills and techniques of the games apart from the rules applicable to the game and thus the petitioner, who is ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 3 working on the post of Weight Lifting Coach be treated as teacher. It is also averred that one Chuni Lal, the then Sports Officer, was also given the benefit of revision of pay-scale of teachers from time to time. The petitioner had made representation on 30.01.2006 (Annexure A-4) to declare him as teacher, however, despite the recommendations by the Students Welfare Officer of the respondent-University, the said request was initially not considered and ultimately as per communication dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), the request so made to declare him as teacher was rejected on the ground that the same does not fall in the definition of teacher as per statutes. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said decision had preferred the writ petition bearing CWP No.8668 of 2010, titled, Pawan Kumar vs. CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, which came to be disposed of on 23.02.2015 with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision for declaring the petitioner as a ‘teacher’ within a period of eight weeks. In sequel to the said directions given by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Management in its 108th meeting held on 04.08.2015. The Board considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner to declare him as a “teacher” in view of the provisions contained in the statutes. ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 4 4. The petitioner has challenged the said decision on various grounds inter-alia that the respondent-University has not taken into consideration the contention raised by the petitioner based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case (supra) and other various judgments passed by the different High Courts and also on the basis of precedent in the respondent-University wherein the benefit of teacher to Ex-Sports Officer Sh.Chuni Lal Sharma has been extended and in the sister concern i.e., H.P. University where all Coaches have been declared as teachers. The action on the part of the respondent-University is illegal, highly unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. The respondent-University has not justified its decision and the same is against the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has further been averred that the petitioner had provided Notifications dated 19.12.1997 and 29.08.1998 to the respondent- University, wherein two posts of Sports Coaches in the discipline of Volleyball and Weight Lifting have been created by the respondent- University in the teacher category in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 (UGC), however, the issue of revision of pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 remain pending as the same was taken up by the respondent- University with the State Government without any action. ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 5 5. The respondent-University filed reply to the petition and supported its decision of rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It has been averred that as per provisions of statutes 4.1, the word ‘teacher’ has been defined and since the petitioner was not appointed as teacher, therefore, he does not fall in the category of “teacher”, as such, he cannot be declared as “teacher” as per statutes and law. It has further been averred that simply by granting UGC scales, it cannot be considered that the post of Weight Lifting Coach be equated with a teacher. The respondent-University has not adopted the procedure and analogy of any other University. There is procedure prescribed in the statutes where the Board of Management can declare a person as a teacher on the recommendations of the academic council. The Board of Management of the respondent-University has taken a decision, in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 23.02.2015 which does not refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any other Courts and the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. 6. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the averments made in the reply. The petitioner has also placed on record other documents, which are the communications issued by the respondent-University. The petitioner ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 6 has also placed on record the judgment passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.6449 of 2008, titled, Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. H.P.Krishi Vishva Vidalaya, wherein the petitioner was appointed as Senior Museum Specialist under a scheme made for strengthening of facilities of establishment of educational museum in the respondent-University was treated as a member of the teaching staff and was granted the pay-scale as granted to the teacher. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is evident from the office order dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure A-2) that the petitioner was appointed to the temporary post of Weight Lifting Coach at a starting pay of Rs.8000/- in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 (UGC) plus allowances as admissible from time to time. As per this office order, the service condition of the petitioner was to be governed by the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’), statutes, rules and regulations framed thereunder. Before the appointment of the petitioner, the Finance Committee of the respondent-University on 29.08.1998 had created two posts of teaching category of Volleyball Coach-I and Weight Lifting Coach in the revised UGC pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 and the revised UGC ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 7 scale of Rs.10000-15200 was granted to the incumbent w.e.f. 01.01.1996, out of which one post is filled i.e. Volleyball Coach-I. 9. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to quote the provisions of Section 2 (za) of the Act, which is reproduced as under:- “(za) “Teacher” means a person appointed under Section 39 of the Act for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension education programme and may include any other person who may be declared by the statutes to be teacher on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board.” 10. At this juncture, it is also relevant to quote statutes 4.1 and 4.3 of the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvadvidyalala Statutes, 1988, since the case of the petitioner is governed under the statutes 4.1 and 4.3, which read as under:- Classification of teachers 4.1 Teachers of the University (1) the teacher of the University shall be classified as follows: (i) Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or their equivalents, conducting/guiding/teaching/research/extension education programmes. (ii) Any other employee of the university declared as a teacher by the Board on the recommendations of the Academic Council. 11. Since the duties of Teachers have been defined under statutes 4.3, the same is also reproduced as under:- ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 8 Duties 4.3 A teacher of the University shall be required to do teaching, research, extension education and/or any other work assigned to him by the Vice-Chancellor. 12. As per definition of the teacher, a teacher means a person appointed under Section 39 for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension education programme and may include any other person who may be declared by the statutes to be teacher on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board. As per ibid definition, it is crystal clear that the Weight Lifting Coach also imparts instructions, guides the students at the time of training in the field of Weight Lifting and thus as per definition provided under the Act, it does not mean that the teacher will only teach the students and not impart instructions and guide them. Further, as per provisions of statutes 4.1, the teacher of the respondent- University shall be classified as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or their equivalents conducting /guiding/teaching/research/ extension education programmes. Had it been only the classification of the teachers prescribed as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, this Court could not have equated the post of Weight Lifting Coach to the category of teachers, but once the provisions of the Act and statutes clearly provide that the teacher, who impart instructions and/or conduct the ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 9 programmes or its equivalent, it cannot be said that the post of Weight Lifting Coach is not to be treated as teacher. 13. As already noticed above, before the appointment of the petitioner as Weight Lifting Coach, the Finance Committee of the respondent-University on 29.08.1998 had created two posts of teaching category of Volleyball Coach-I and Weight Lifting Coach in teaching category and the person, who was appointed and holding the post of Volleyball Coach-I, was granted the revised UGC scale of Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and thus the action on the part of the respondent-University to hold that the post of Weight Lifting Coach cannot be equated with the teaching service, is unsustainable in law. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent- University has simply stated that the matter was placed before the Board of Management in its 108th meeting held on 04.08.2015 and the Board of Management after thorough deliberation has not approved the category of the petitioner to be declared as a teacher, in view of the provisions contained in statutes 4.1. No reasons have been assigned, especially when the petitioner in his representation, which was made by him before approaching this Court had mentioned that his case is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case (supra) and also the decision passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. At ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 10 this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case (supra) has succinctly dealt with the issue and has held that a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges game and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompany the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose, it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of various games and sports. Further, the Physical Director imparts students various skills and techniques of the games and sports and large number of indoor and outdoor games in which students have to be trained and thus concluded that the Physical Director has to retire at the age of 60 years, which was the age fixed for the Teacher in the respondent-University. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:- “10.From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanys the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 11 the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games. 14. In the present case, as already mentioned above, as per definition of the Act, more particularly, Section 2 (za) of the Act, which clearly provides that a teacher means a person appointed under Section 39 for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension education programme and may include any other person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher, the Weight Lifting Coach in the respondent-University is also included in the definition of teacher as provided in the Act and further as per provisions of the statutes, the teacher can be classified as Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or their equivalents. In this case, the respondent- University had already decided to include the post Weight Lifting Coach in the teaching category of Volleyball in the meeting of the ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 12 Finance Committee held on 29.08.1998 and further the Volleyball Coach-I was also granted the revised UGC scale and thus the contention raised by the respondent-University in the reply that the Weight Lifting Coach cannot be equated, is without any reason and justification and thus the decision taken by the respondent- University deserves to be quashed. 15. 15. The petitioner has placed on record documents issued by the respondent-University, wherein the petitioner has been shown to have imparting instructions to the students in various skills and techniques for the games and sports, which admittedly, are after the institution of the writ petition, as can be seen from the office orders dated 30.01.2017 (page 156) and 08.09.2017 (page 157) and once the respondent-University admitting that the petitioner is imparting instructions to the students in various skills and techniques for the games and sports, it can easily be gathered that he is covered under the definition of “teacher” as per provisions of Section 2(za) of the Act. It is not only after the institution of the petition that the petitioner has been shown to be imparting students about various skills, even prior to the institution of the petition, the Students Welfare Officer of the respondent-University has issued certificate dated 05.05.2014 (page 158), wherein it has been shown that the petitioner who is working as Weight Lifting Coach has been ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 13 imparting instructions to the University Weight Lifting and Power Lifting teams during the course of their training, since his appointment in the respondent-University. Further, it is his duty to teach and guide the students about the specific rules and regulations of these games, thus it cannot be said that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Weight Lifting Coach, is not performing the duties of a teacher, especially when the definition of the teacher is provided under the Act and further the duties have been assigned in the statutes enacted by the respondent-University. 16. The respondent-University has not disputed the fact that the petitioner at the time of appointing him as a Weight Lifting Coach was granted the UGC scale and further his services were not governed by the Act and statutes enacted by it. It is also not disputed by the respondent-University in the reply that one Sh.Chuni Lal, who was appointed as Ex-Sports Officer was not granted the UGC pay-scale. The plea taken by the respondent-University that Sh. Chuni Lal was not declared as teacher cannot be an impediment to declare petitioner as teacher, especially when in the case of one Kanwar Jeet Singh, who was appointed as Senior Museum Specialist was held to be treated as member of the teaching staff, as is evident from the decision passed in his case by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.09.2010, which was affirmed in LPA ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 14 No.536 of 2011, titled, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalaya vs. Kanwarjeet Singh on 19.04.2012. The respondent-University feeling aggrieved by the decision passed by this Court had assailed the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5504 of 2016, titled, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himahchal Pradesh vs. Kanwarjeet Singh and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been pleased to dismiss the appeal on 01.11.2018. Once the Senior Museum Specialist was enacted under a scheme has been declared as a member of the teaching staff, for the purpose of granting of scale to him, at par with the teachers, the petitioner who is working on the post of Weight Lifting Coach, cannot be denied the said benefits, especially when the provisions of the Act and statutes are very clear. 17. Learned senior counsel representing the respondent- University has vehemently argued that by simply granting the UGC scale, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to be declared as teacher is concerned, no doubt, it is true that by simply granting the UGC scale, the employee of the respondent-University cannot be treated as a teacher, but keeping in view the definition of the “teacher” as provided under the Act and further the duties assigned to the teachers in the statutes and further equating the teachers ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 15 with other post, the petitioner, who is discharging the functions of imparting instructions and guiding the students in the field of Weight Lifting Coach, cannot be denied the benefit claimed by him. 18. 18. Learned senior counsel has further vehemently argued that the reliance placed upon by the petitioner on the Notification dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure A-3), whereby the Coaches have been treated as Lecturers for all intents and purposes and given the regular scale by H.P. University is concerned, since the respondent- University has its own Act, statutes, rules and regulations, it is not bound by the said Notification. It is true that the respondent- University has its own Act and statutes, but at the same time, once the Coaches in the Himachal Pradesh University and also in the respondent-University are performing the same duties, it cannot be countenanced that the Coaches in the Himachal Pradesh University though declared as teachers, cannot be declared as teachers in the respondent-University, especially when the provisions of the Act and statutes specifically mention that a “teacher” means a person appointed under Section 39 for the purpose of imparting instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension education programme and may include any other person. Once the definition of the “teacher” is clear and further the statutes also provides that the post of teacher can be equated with other posts, the decision ( 2026:HHC:21910 ) 16 taken by the respondent-University to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his case is not covered under the provision of statutes 4.1, is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and wrong. 19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and the communication dated 20.08.2015 (Annexure A-8) issued by the respondent- University is quashed and set aside and the category of the petitioner is declared as “teacher”. Further, the respondent- University is directed to release the benefits of the revision of UGC scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 on notional basis and on actual basis prior to three years of filing of the present petition. In case the petitioner is not paid the arrears within three months from today, the respondent-University shall pay the same along-with interest @6% per annum from today till actual payment to him. 20. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 3rd June, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (naveen) Judge