2026:HHC:22841 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.780 of 2020 Decided on: 16.06.2026 Uploaded on: 17.06.2026 Tek Chand Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. J.S. Bagga and Ms. Vanshika Bagga, Advocates, for respondents No.4 & 5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i). That the impugned rejection order dated 8.8.2016 contained in Annexure A-14 passed by the respondent NO.2 may kindly be quashed and set- aside. (ii). That the respondents may further be directed to take a decision on the recommendation made by the respondent No.4 (Annexure A-5) without discriminating the applicant. (iii). That the respondents may further be directed to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 issue appointment letter to the applicant against the post of PET under which he is working since long. (iv). That the respondent-State be directed to furnish the details of grant in aid released qua PET after sanctioning of the post i.e. 2007.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed, vide office order dated 04.07.2001, as Physical Education Teacher (in short ‘PET’) on temporary basis in S.D. Sr. Secondary School Ganj Bazar, Shimla. In sequel to the said appointment order, he joined his duties on 05.07.2001. When the petitioner was appointed as PET, the post was not sanctioned in respondent No.4-School and the same came to be sanctioned subsequently as evident from communication dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure A-2). After sanctioning the post, the interviews were conducted on 06.09.2007 to fill up the post of PET and the petitioner also applied for the same and participated in the interview. The petitioner is still working in the school, but he has not been paid the Grant- in-Aid (in short ‘GIA’) by the respondents, though he is fulfilling the qualification to hold the post of PET. After sanctioning the post of PET, respondent No.4 on 29.12.2007 wrote to respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner. When the claim of the petitioner for offering him 3 the appointment was not accepted, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.4007 of 2011, titled, Tek Chand Sharma vs. State of HP & Ors., seeking direction to decide the representation. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Competent Authority to decide the representation. The representation came to be rejected vide office order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A- 11), holding that the State Government provides GIA to eligible teacher/staff covered under GIA Rules and since the petitioner has not been appointed under GIA Policy as such he is not entitled for GIA salary and hence the experience certificate cannot be counter signed. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of respondent No.3, the petitioner had again approached this Court by way of writ petition, which was transferred to the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and came to be registered as TA No.5828 of 2015, titled, Tek Chand Sharma vs. State of HP & Ors. The transferred petition was disposed of on 09.03.2016. It was observed in the order that respondent No.2 had allowed the adjustment of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok against the vacant posts of Shastri and 4 Language Teacher respectively and the case of the petitioner was not considered on the grounds that he had been appointed by the President. However, the appointment order of the petitioner dated 04.07.2001 (Annexure P-1) clearly shows that this order was issued by the Manager. The vacancy position letter dated 04.05.2007, clearly refers that all the codal formalities have been complied with in the case of appointment of the petitioner and as such he deserves similar treatment as is extended to Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A-11) was ordered to be quashed and set aside and respondent No.2 was directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as PET against vacancy and release the Grant-in-Aid since 2007. 4. The respondents have not assailed the aforementioned order passed by the learned Tribunal. However, as per the direction given by the Tribunal, considered the case of the petitioner for appointment as PET and rejected the same vide order dated 08.08.2016 (Annexure A-14) holding that the petitioner has not been appointed by the Manager of the school as per provisions of 5 GIA Rules 1997 Appendix-II, i.e. appointment made without approval, without advertising the post and without conducting the proper interview process. Further when the interview for the post of PET was conducted in the year 2007 as laid down in GIA Rules 1997, the petitioner also participated in the process of selection, but he could not fall in the merit. Thereafter, the petitioner to gain undue advantage of his appointment made by the Management of the school in the year 2001, without adopting the proper procedure, approached this Court time and again by giving or taking one or another plea. So far as the cases of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok are concerned, the record reveals that both the teachers were appointed before the GIA Rules, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not similar to them. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2 has filed the instant petition inter-alia on the grounds that the order of rejection is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Further respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was appointed after following the proper procedure by duly Selection Committee, which is evident 6 from perusal of Annexure A-15. Further it has been averred that post of PET was sanctioned in the year 2007 and the appointment of the petitioner was before that and he was not appointed against any Grant-in-Aid post. It has also been averred that once the respondents have adjusted Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok against the vacant posts of Shastri and Language Teacher as specifically observed in the order passed by the Tribunal, non-extending the similar benefit to the petitioner is virtually disobeying the direction given by the Tribunal. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and averred that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the petitioner does not hold the civil post. It has further been averred that the petitioner is seeking the relief of release of GIA w.e.f. 2007 and the previous writ petition was instituted by him in the year 2011 i.e. after a lapse of more than four years and the subsequent OA (i.e. present petition) has been filed in the year 2016. It has also been averred that as per the GIA Rules, the appointing authority had to advertise the post both in English and vernacular daily newspapers in the State and further the recommendations for appointment of the candidates ought 7 to be made by a sub-committee consisting of five members of Managing Committee. As per appointment order dated 04.07.2001, the petitioner has been issued appointment on temporary basis on the same day. Further it has been averred that the respondents though conducted interviews in the office of Deputy Director of Elementary Education Shimla on 06.09.2007, but the management did not issue the appointment letter to one Sh. Varainder Khachi, who stood at 1st position in the merit, whereas the petitioner stood at 4th position. The management of the school did not issue the appointment letter for the reasons best known to them. The management deliberately did not issue appointment order to the candidate, who stood first in merit in order to accommodate its own appointee i.e. the petitioner, who was appointed in the institution in violation of GIA rules. Further the case of the petitioner is not similar to that of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok for the reason that they were working in the said school w.e.f. 02.03.1991 and 12.03.1990 respectively i.e. before the notification of GIA Rules, 1997. 7. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed reply to the petition and averred that the appointment of the petitioner 8 as PET was after adopting the proper procedure. The respondent-Department was duly conveyed regrading vacant post lying vacant since long and in the interest of school and students, the petitioner was joined as PET on 05.07.2001 as per appointment letter dated 04.07.2007. It has further been averred that the matter regarding the appointment of the petitioner was also sent to the respondents-State for granting benefit to him as per the GIA norms, but the same has not been considered and granted by the respondent-Department on the ground that the petitioner has not been appointed as per the scheme under GIA, whereas the management had followed the procedure while appointing the petitioner as PET in the year 2001. 8. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and controverted the averments made therein. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as per appointment letter dated 04.07.2001 by the management of the school and in sequel to the said appointment letter, he joined his duties on the post of PET 9 on 05.07.2001 and continuously working against the sanctioned post till date. When the petitioner was offered the appointment as PET, the post of PET was not sanctioned and the same came to be sanctioned later on as evident from perusal of communication dated 07.05.2007 (Annexure A-2). No doubt after the sanction of the post, the interviews were conducted on 06.09.2007, but no person has been offered appointment by the management of the school and the petitioner is still continuously serving in the school managed by respondent No.5. It is worth to mention here that when the claim of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents-State, he had preferred the writ petition before this Court, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents-State to decide the representation preferred by him, which came to be rejected vide office order dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure A-11). Against the said order, the petitioner had filed the writ petition, which was transferred to the learned Tribunal and came to be registered as TA No.5828 of 2015, titled, Tek Chand Sharma vs. State of HP & Ors. The said transferred application was disposed of on 09.03.2016 and order dated 12.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2 was quashed and 10 set aside with a direction to him to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as PET against vacancy and release the GIA since 2007. While disposing of petition, the learned Tribunal had specifically observed that the appointment of the petitioner was issued by the Manager and the same was after observing all the codal formalities. The said order is reproduced hereinunder:- “MA No. 2171 of 2015 Heard, allowed and disposed of. Copies of letters dated 29.12.2007 and 23.06.2008 are taken on record. TA No. 5828 of 2015 2. Heard. 3. The applicant was appointed as. Physical Education Teacher (PET) in S.D. Senior Secondary School, Ganj Bazaar, Shimla on 05 07.2001. The Government issued notification on 07.05.2007 giving permission to fill up the vacant posts in privately managed schools including aforesaid S.D. Senior Secondary School. The grant-in-aid was not released to him on the grounds that he had not been duly appointed. 4. The case of the applicant for Grant-in-Aid along with that of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok was sent by respondents No. 4 and 5 to the Director of Education, Shimla. The Director of Education, Shimla, vide letter dated nil, Annexure P-8, had allowed the adjustment of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok against the vacant posts of Shastri and Language Teacher respectively and the case of the applicant was not considered on the grounds that the applicant had been appointed by the President. However, the appointment order of applicant dated 04.07.2001, Annexure P-1, clearly shows that this order was issued by the Manager. The vacancy position letter dated 04.05.2007, Annexure P-2, refers that all the codal formalities had been complied with in the case of appointment of the applicant. The applicant deserves similar treatment as is extended to Smt. Raj Gupta and 11 Smt. Indira Alok. 5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.07.2011 is quashed and set aside and respondent No. 2/competent authority is directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for appointment as PET against vacancy and release the Grant-in-Aid since 2007. 6. The original application as also pending Misc. Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the above terms.” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal while quashing the order had returned the findings that the appointment of the petitioner is after following all the codal formalities. The said order passed by the learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the respondents-State, meaning thereby they have accepted the same. However, in clear defiance of the said directions, respondent No.2 has passed the office order on 08.08.2016 (Annexure A-14) again holding that the appointment of the petitioner has been made without approval, without advertising the post and without conducting the proper interview. Once the learned Tribunal had specifically observed in the order that the appointment of the petitioner has been issued by the Manager and further the same is after following all the codal formalities, it was not for respondent No.2 to make any observations contrary to the observations made by the Tribunal. The best course 12 available with the respondents-State was only to assail the said order, if they were aggrieved by the findings given by the learned Tribunal. Once the learned Tribunal had already held that the appointment of the petitioner is after following all the codal formalities, the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and against the observations made by the learned Tribunal. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has been serving with respondents No.4 and 5 since 05.07.2001 and further when his appointment was made as PET, the post of PET was not sanctioned, but it was made in the interest of the school and students, who were getting the education. The school where the petitioner is serving is in receipt of 95% Grant-in-Aid from the respondents-State. The post of PET was sanctioned later on as evident from perusal of communication dated 07.05.2007. Once the post of PET was sanctioned by the State Government, which fact has not been denied by the respondents-State while filing reply to the petition, the petitioner is entitled to the appointment as PET against vacancy with all benefits such as GIA since 2007, keeping in view the fact that the Tribunal while allowing the petition on 09.03.2016 has categorically 13 observed that the petitioner be released the GIA since 2007. The facts mentioned above clearly show that the petitioner is litigating in the Court for his rights and further other persons have been appointed and released the Grant-in-Aid. 13. The plea taken by the respondents-State in the reply that the petitioner is not holding a Civil post, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when the petition was instituted, the Tribunal could not have adjudicated the issue, however, when the petition has been transferred to this Court, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the same. Since the petitioner is discharging his duties with respondents No.4 & 5 for the last about 25 years, he cannot be denied the similar benefits as extended to other persons namely Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok. The plea taken by the respondents that the earlier petition was instituted after more than four years can also not be countenanced for the simple reason that after the direction given by the Court, the respondents had taken the decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 12.07.2011 (Annexure A-11), against which he has preferred the writ petition, which came to be transferred to the learned Tribunal and ultimately allowed on 09.03.2016. At the time 14 of deciding the petition, the learned Tribunal had specifically observed that respondent No.2 had allowed the adjustment of Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok against the vacant posts of Shastri and Language Teacher, respectively and the case of the petitioner was not considered on the grounds that he had been appointed by the President. However, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment order of the petitioner dated 04.07.2001, clearly shows that this order was issued by the Manager and thus the petitioner deserves same treatment as is extended to Smt. Raj Gupta and Smt. Indira Alok. Once such findings returned by the Tribunal had attained finality and the respondents-State had not assailed the said order, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim, contrary to the observations made by the Tribunal, is unsustainable in law and thus, the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issue raised in the petition is covered by the decision passed in CWP No.4196 of 2013, titled, Ms. Sushma Rana and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 03.07.2015, wherein it 15 has been directed to release the Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioners. The said judgment has subsequently been followed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court on 02.01.2024 in CWPOA No.5760 of 2019, titled, Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinunder:- “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-inaid 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-inaid. 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 16 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.” 15. In the present case, when the petitioner was offered the appointment as PET, the post was not sanctioned and the same came to be sanctioned subsequently, as evident from a perusal of communication dated 07.05.2007 and thus the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as PET against vacancy w.e.f. 2007 and also to release him the grant as per the GIA Rules. 16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 (Annexure A-14) passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent/Competent Authority to regularise 17 the services of the petitioner as PET w.e.f. 29.12.2007 and release GIA in his favour from the said date with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to release the arrears in favour of the petitioner within three months from today and in case the arrears are not released within the stipulated period, interest @6% per annum shall be paid from today till its actual payment. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 16 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge