Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16506 (HP)

Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-04-07

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to grant the benefits of PTA Policy 2006 in favour of petitioner and further be directed to release the admissible dues of remuneration/salary in favour of the present petitioner immediately w.e.f. 2006 to till date alongwith the interest of 12% in the interest of justice and in future also. ii) That in alternate, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department may kindly be directed to release the admissible dues of remuneration/salary in favour of the present petitioner immediately w.e.f. 2015 to till date alongwith the interest of 12% in terms of SMC Policy 2012, in the interest of justice and in further also.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the grant-in-aid upon his appointment as a Lecturer (Commerce) in Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda, District Mandi, by the Parents Teacher Association for the period he served as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged in the month of May 2006 and he continued to serve as such till the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner rejoined his position in the year 2015 upon a resolution, passed in this regard by the School Management Committee and he continued to serve as such until his services stood dispensed with during the pendency of the petition. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was performing the duties of Lecturer (Commerce) in the School concerned, the act of the respondents of not releasing grant-in-aid in his favour and paying him due and admissible salary, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the State, submitted that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification when he was appointed as a Lecturer (Commerce) and further the selection of the petitioner by the PTA was without constituting a Selection Committee in this regard and his appointment was simply on the basis of the resolution passed by PTA. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the PTA on monthly remuneration of Rs.1200/- which was increased from time to time and as the petitioner had agreed to his appointment on said terms and conditions, he has no locus, seeking the reliefs as have been claimed by way of this petition. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 5. It is not a disputed fact that the petitioner, upon his selection initially by the Parents Teacher Association and thereafter by the School Management Committee, served in Government Senior Secondary School Rohanda as a Lecturer in the subject of Commerce, firstly from the month of May, 2006 upto the year 2013 and thereafter, from the year 2015 till his services were terminated in the year 2025. 6. The appointment of the petitioner by the Parents Teacher Association or School Management Committee was not in a Private School but in a Government School. This obviously means that he was appointed against a sanctioned post of Lecturer Commerce, because, it is not the case of the Department that there already was a Lecturer Commerce serving in the said School, yet the PTA or SMC arbitrarily appointed the petitioner against the said post. This means that the petitioner continued to perform his duties against the sanctioned post of Lecturer Commerce from the year 2006 to 2013 and then from the year 2015 to 2025 and all these facts were well within the knowledge of the Department, because, nothing prevented the Department from replacing the petitioner by either appointing a fresh appointee or by transferring another Lecturer in his place. 7. The Department, in fact, at the expense of the petitioner ensured that education was imparted to the students studying in the School in the subject of Commerce by evading the appointment of a regular Lecturer in the School, to whom obviously full wages were to be paid. 8. In light of the facts enumerated above, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the prayer of the petitioner that he is at least entitled for the release of grant-in-aid for the time served by him as a Lecturer (Commerce) in the School in issue. 8. In light of the facts enumerated above, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the prayer of the petitioner that he is at least entitled for the release of grant-in-aid for the time served by him as a Lecturer (Commerce) in the School in issue. 9. At this stage itself, this Court is making the observation that as the issue of his termination is not before this Court, it is not making any comment upon the same. 10. Coming back to the main issue, as observed hereinabove also, as the Department extracted the services of a Lecturer Commerce from the petitioner from 2006 to 2013 and then again from 2015 to 2025 against a sanctioned post, they are liable to compensate the petitioner for the same by releasing the grant-in-aid in his favour for the said period. The factum of the petitioner allegedly not possessing the requisite qualification at the relevant time cannot come in the way of the petitioner receiving the said grant-in-aid for the reason that it is not the case of the State- respondent that those students who were taught by the petitioner were found to be inferior or that they had to undertake additional exams as compared to students in the subject of Commerce who were taught by a regular Lecturer. 11. In fact, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the practice which is being adopted by the Department of filling regular posts by appointing teachers through the School Management Committee or Parents Teacher Association is highly deprecatable, because by doing so, they are neither doing justice with the unemployed educated youth of the country nor with the students who are being taught in the said Schools. 12. Without making any further observations in this regard, as the act of the State-respondent of not releasing the grant-in-aid to the petitioner for the period he imparted education as a Lecturer Commerce in the School in issue is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same is held to be bad and the respondents are directed to release the benefits of the PTA policy/pay to the petitioner the grant-in-aid for the period he taught in the School in issue. In case, the needful is done within a period of three months from today, it will not entail any interest, but, if needful is not done within three months, then, interest @6% from the date of the judgment shall be paid by the State-respondent to the petitioner. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.