2026:HHC:21809 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 310 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos. 86 & 707 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.06.2026 LPA No. 310 of 2025 State of H. P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Jogi Ram & Anr. …Respondents LPA No. 86 of 2025 State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Rangila Ram & Anr. ...Respondents LPA No. 707 of 2025 State of H.P. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Narender Kumar ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the appellants-State. For the Respondents: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 in LPA Nos. 310 and 86 of 2025. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent in LPA No. 707 of 2025. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present judgment shall dispose of three appeals filed by the State against the judgments passed by the learned 2 2026:HHC:21809 Single Judge in CWP No. 3474 of 2019, titled as Jogi Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 31.05.2024, CWP No. 5227 of 2021, titled as Rangila Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 01.10.2024 and CWP No. 10549 of 2023, titled as Narender Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.06.2024. 2. In sum and substance, the petitioner(s)-employee(s), are working as DPE/Physical Education Teachers in the schools in question. 3. In the case of Jogi Ram, he has been continuously working as DPE since 27.07.2009 in GSSS, Khunachi, District Mandi and his appointment has been made by Parents Teachers Association. The necessary request had been made to the higher authority for creation of the said post and the recommendation had also been made, but the post was only created on 21.11.2018. It is apparent from the writ record that way back on 24.09.2011 (Annexure P-5), the Principal of the said school had written to the Deputy Director of the Higher Education that the students had opted for physical education and the classes had been started, therefore, necessary permission was sought that Physical Education should have been taught by the PTA appointee. The fact that on an earlier occasion, permission had been sought as such for the upgradation as a Senior Secondary School to choose one subject out of six subjects depending on 3 2026:HHC:21809 the choice/availability of the students, had also been highlighted, but preference was thus given to the creation of the post of DPE. The State took its own sweet time and did not do so till the year 2018, as per the admitted facts. 4. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge while placing reliance upon the judgment in CWP No. 1621 of 2021, titled as Manoj Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors, dated 17.04.2023, had come to the conclusion that the failure on the part of the government to create the post, could not be used as a tool to exploit the petitioner and necessary directions had been issued. 5. The perusal of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar’s case (supra), would go on to show that the teacher appointed by the PTA was working since 31.08.2004 against honorarium of Rs.1500/- per month which was enhanced to Rs.7000/- per month. The Coordinate Bench had noticed that 19 years had been elapsed since his appointment and he had been paid meager amount from the PTA funds and resultantly, directed on the point of utilisation of the services of the employee that sanction of the post be done and to release Grant- In-Aid in favour of the petitioner from the date when the Grant- In-Aid Rules were notified and to consider his case for contractual employment and regularization in accordance of the policy. The relevant part reads as under:- 4 2026:HHC:21809 “15. In light of above noticed exposition, we have no hesitation to hold that the treatment given to petitioner by the respondents is harsh and discriminatory and hence cannot be sustained. Petitioner was duly qualified. There is no allegation of petitioner being incompetent to discharge his duties. Respondent No.1 as a model employer cannot be allowed to indulge in exploitative action towards its employees. The failure of respondents to sanction the post of PET in GSSS Drang despite requirement cannot be allowed to be used as shield for such exploitative action. 16. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed as under:- i) To release the grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner from the date when the Grant-in-Aid Rules were notified; and ii) to consider the case of petitioner for contract employment and regularization in accordance with the policy, adopted by respondent No.1 in respect of similarly situated PTA Teachers. The aforesaid directions be complied with positively within three months. 17. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 6. It is not disputed that the judgment in Manoj Kumar’s case (supra) has not been assailed before the Apex Court. 7. In Manoj Kumar’s case (supra), reference was also made to the judgment in CWP No. 226 of 2010, titled as Promila Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 02.04.2015, that 5 2026:HHC:21809 the State Government has to act as model employer and has social obligation as such not to exploit the employees. 8. Similar reference is also made to the judgment passed in CWP No. 384 of 2017, titled as Renuka Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 26.05.2018, (Annexure P-13), which has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, whereby it has been held that the State has to frame laws to prevent exploitation and the employee in that case had been allowed to continue for 11 years. 9. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Nihal Singh, 2013 (14) SCC 65 the Apex Court has gone to hold that sanctioned posts do not fall from the heavens and have to be created. Relevant portion reads as under:- “20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.” 10. It is also brought to our notice that in Renuka Devi’s case (supra), while granting similar relief, reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of H.P. 6 2026:HHC:21809 and Ors., dated 07.08.2015, whereby selection/ appointment made by the PTA were held to be entitled to Grant-in-Aid. It is also brought to our notice that SLP (C) No. 30729-30730 of 2018, titled as The State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Hem Raj Sharma, was dismissed on 23.04.2026, whereby the order passed in Review Petition No. 45 of 2017, on 21.06.2017 by this Court, was also subject matter of challenge and upheld while leaving the question of law open. 11. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason as such to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge in Jogi Ram’s case (supra) and the appeal filed by the State is accordingly dismissed. 12. Coming to the facts of the Narender Kumar’s case (supra), he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the month of May, 2010 by the concerned Parents Teachers Association in Government Senior Secondary School, Gallan, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and was employed as such for more than 14 years and the learned Single Judge had directed that due and admissible grant be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months, while placing reliance upon the judgment in CWP No. 4971 of 2021, Susheel Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure R-2). We are informed that no further appeal has been filed in the case of Sushil Kumar’s case (supra) and the same 7 2026:HHC:21809 has been duly implemented, which would be clear from the order passed in COPC No. 560 of 2024, titled as Susheel Kumar vs. Rakesh Kanwar, Secretary (Education) & Anr., dated 23.06.2025. 13. In such circumstances, we also do not find any plausible reason as such to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Narender Kumar’s case (supra) and the appeal filed by the State is accordingly dismissed. 14. Now, coming to the facts of the Rangila Ram’s case (supra), he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 05.07.2011 by the concerned School Management Committee in Government High School Reyur, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. and was employed as such for more than 10 years. The learned Single Judge as such had accordingly come to the conclusion that Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, be paid to the petitioner and distinction has been made to the judgment passed in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 07.04.2015 that when the School Management Committee Policy to engage teachers was not in vogue, is without any rationale, since the service of the employee is continuous and there was no termination and the teacher had been teaching from one academic year after another academic year, the directions were accordingly issued 8 2026:HHC:21809 for payment of Grant-in-Aid, in accordance with law, from the date of his appointment. 15. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Rangila Ram’s case (supra) and the appeal filed by the State is also accordingly dismissed. 16. Resultantly, all the appeals are dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 3rd June, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)