JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Sulesh Chand, had filed an Original Application No. 6575 of 2016 before the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 823 of 2020 seeking the following reliefs:- 7(a) That the respondents be directed to continue with the services of the applicant  as  per  the  notifications  vide Annexure A-4,A-5, and if after the filing of the present O.A the services of the applicant are terminated, he may kindly be ordered to be re-instated; 7(b). That the services of the applicant be regulated strictly in compliance of Annexures A-4 and A-5 and further in consonance with the Grant-in-Aid to PTA rules 2006 framed by the State Government and the Grant-in-Aid may kindly be ordered to be released in favour of the applicant as is being done in the newly appointed teachers vide Annexure A-7”. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Political Science under the respondents No. 3 and 4 through PTA under Pandit Sant Ram Government College, Baijnath against vacant post on 26.09.2014 at fixed salary of Rs.8,000/-per  month, which  was  subsequently  increased  by the respondents. It is averred that petitioner is a Post Graduate in Political Science and has also passed State Level Eligibility test for Lectureship/ Assistant Professorship, as per Annexure A-2 colly. It is averred that though the petitioner had been working  in  the  said  College  as  Assistant  Professor in  Political  Science  on  PTA  against  vacant  post since September, 2014  but the Respondents  have not  extended  the  benefit  of  Grant-in  Aid  and resultant salary to the petitioner. It is averred that the State Government has taken a decision on 26.07.2014 Annexure A-4, reiterated on 06.08.2014 Annexure  A-5,  that  teachers  who  were  engaged in Colleges under PTAs and had qualified NET/ SLET, shall continue to serve as teachers. In this backdrop, the grievance is that though the petitioner was eligible and was appointed through PTA against vacancy but the action of the Respondents in not releasing the Grant-in-aid has resulted  in  depriving  the  petitioner  of  the  salary at higher rate which have been given to other similarly placed teachers in Colleges, is unfair, unjust, illegal and unconstitutional. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 18.02.2017 of Director of Higher Education. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit States that the petitioner-applicant is not a Government Servant. It is averred that the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer as a Guest Faculty  in  September  2014  and  he  was  given  salary as fixed by Local PTA time to time. Reply-Affidavit does not dispute the continuity of the petitioner as on day also. Reply-Affidavit indicates that Grant-in-aid was not given as the petitioner possessed 52.5% marks  at  Master’s  Level/Post  Graduation  vis-à-vis the requirement of 55% marks as prescribed in the Rules. In this backdrop, the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the petition. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Assistant Professor to assert that as per the Recruitment Rules, though requirement of 55% marks at Master’s Degree has been prescribed but at the same time, a relaxation of 5% is provided from 55% to 50% marks at Masters Level for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. In this backdrop, it is averred that once the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category as per Annexure PA-1, in terms of the certificate issued by Executive Magistrate, Baijnath on 08.07.2011, therefore, the petitioner having 52.5% marks at Master’s Level was fully eligible. 5. Heard, Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner, Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-State and Mr. Vikas Rajput, Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4. ANALYSIS: 6. 5. Heard, Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner, Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-State and Mr. Vikas Rajput, Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the action of the State Authorities in denying the salary under Grant-in-Aid  to  the  petitioner  cannot  pass  the test of judicial scrutiny, when, the petitioner was appointed and had served as an Assistant Professor in Political Science in Pandit Sant Ram Government College Baijnath against vacant post from 26.09.2014 coupled with the fact that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2011, Annexure PA-2, the requirement of 55% marks at Master’s Level is relaxable by 5% in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates and in these circumstances, once the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category as per Annexure PA-1 and he possesses 52.50% marks at Master’s Level and had also qualified State Level Eligibility Test [SLET], therefore, the petitioner was fully eligible for the post of Assistant Professor at the time of appointment and the petitioner is held entitled for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary from the date of appointment, for the following reasons:- DENIAL OF GRANT-IN-AID DESPITE ELIGIBILITY UNDER RULES- UNTENABLE: 6(i). The State-Authorities cannot deny salary under Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner when, State-Authorities have notified The Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teachers Association Rules on 29.06.2006 [referred to as GIA to PTA Rules 2006]. A combined reading of Rule 2 (e) and Rule 6, 7 and Rule 8 mandate that grant-in-aid is admissible to the teachers in “Educational Institutions” i.e. Colleges and Schools, who are educationally qualified and were engaged against vacant posts  and the  grant was admissible at  the  rate  of  50%  of  initial  pay  plus  dearness pay as prescribed by the government. The State Authorities have notified the and Promotion Rules for the  post  of  Assistant  Professor  [College  Cadre]  on 29.10.2011 [Annexure PA-2]. Perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules specifically states that though the person possesses 55% marks at Master’s Level but such requirement of 55% marks is relaxable by 5% [55 to 50 %] for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe categories. The State Authorities have notified the and Promotion Rules for the  post  of  Assistant  Professor  [College  Cadre]  on 29.10.2011 [Annexure PA-2]. Perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules specifically states that though the person possesses 55% marks at Master’s Level but such requirement of 55% marks is relaxable by 5% [55 to 50 %] for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe categories. Based on the above prescription in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules [Annexure PA-2] the factual matrix reveals that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category as per the certificate dated 08.07.2011 [Annexure PA-1] and being a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the petitioner was required to possess 50% marks at Master’s Level and since the petitioner possessed 52.5% marks at Master’s Level as per the Post Graduation/ Masters Certificate issued by Himachal Pradesh University on 16.04.1999 [Annexure A-2] and even the petitioner has qualified the State Level Eligibility Test [SLET] on 15.05.2014 as per Annexure A-2 colly, which is a sine qua non for appointment, therefore, the petitioner is duly eligible for the post of Assistant Professor [Political Science] and the stand of the State Authorities that the petitioner is not eligible,  cannot  sustain,  in  view  of  clear  stipulation in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as referred to above. Petitioner being eligible and having been appointed against a sanctioned post is entitled for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary in terms of the Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules 2006. Non-release of Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner despite his eligibility and despite having been in service for the last 12 years when, the benefit of Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary has been given to other similarly placed teachers possesses throughout the State, who possessed similar qualification(s) and were appointed as such through PTA’s-SMC’s in various Colleges in the State is, ex-facie discriminatory, uncalled for and illegal. DENIAL OF GRANT-IN-AID AND SALARY IGNORING RULES UNTENABLE: 6(ii). Denial of salary to the petitioner under Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules dated 29.09.2006 without giving a prior notice and without affording a personal hearing is violative of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the action of the Respondents in denying or curtailing the legal entitlement for salary flowing from Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, by giving a complete go-bye to the Rules is impermissible. PLEA  OF  STATE  FOR  DENYING  BENEFITS  OF GRANT-IN-AID UNTENABLE: 6(iii). Moreover, the action of the Respondents in denying or curtailing the legal entitlement for salary flowing from Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, by giving a complete go-bye to the Rules is impermissible. PLEA  OF  STATE  FOR  DENYING  BENEFITS  OF GRANT-IN-AID UNTENABLE: 6(iii). Plea of the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit [Para 2 and 6(b)] that the Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules 2006 come to an end on 03.01.2008 and State Authorities have stopped appointment/engagement of teachers under Grant-in-aid to PTA Rules dated 29.09.2006  is  untenable,  for  the  reason,  firstly,  that nothing has been placed on record to establish that the State-Authorities have brought an end to the Rules and had stopped the appointments/engagements  of  PTA  teachers  after  3.01.2008;  and  secondly,  even the applicability, operation and effect of the Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules of 2006 can neither be restricted nor curtailed by an executive order ; and thirdly, the  State  Authorities  cannot  put  on  hold  the  PTA to GIA Rules of 2006 by a mere administrative decision-order  and  such  an  action  cannot  sustain, in view of the principles outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Estate Officer & another Versus Charanjit Kaur (2022) 13 SCC 475 [Para 22] and fourthly,  the  rights,  benefits  and  legal  entitlements accruing under the Rules, the PTA to Grant-in-Aid Rules cannot be negated unless Rules were repealed in accordance with law, which has not been so done  by  State  Authorities;  and  fifthly,  the  Statutory Rules cannot be overridden by an executive order or  an  executive  practice  in  terms  of  the  mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Kuppusamy and Anr versus State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (1998) 8 SCC 469 [Para 3]; and sixthly, State Authorities have admitted  to have  extended the  Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules 2006  to other persons appointed as teachers i.e. Assistant Professors through PTA in Colleges as per the notifications dated 08.09.2014 and  04.06.2015;  and  seventhly,  the  plea  of  the State Authorities that the GIA to PTA Rules 2006 had come to an end is fallacious, for the reason, that  extension  of  Rules  can  only  be  granted in  case  the  Rules  hold  the  field  and  not otherwise. That being so, the only logical inference is that the GIA to PTA Rules 2006 remained in force upto the date of issuance of the notifications dated  08.09.2014  and  04.06.2015  and  thereafter. That being so, the only logical inference is that the GIA to PTA Rules 2006 remained in force upto the date of issuance of the notifications dated  08.09.2014  and  04.06.2015  and  thereafter. Thus,  once  the  GIA  to  PTA  Rules  2006  remained in vogue and teachers appointed in colleges under these Rules read with the government decision were granted grant-in-aid and resultant salary therefore, the State Authorities cannot be permitted to carve out an artificial and superfluous distinction, on non-existent fact {that rules of 2006 were brought to an end}  between  one  homogeneous  class  of  teachers by releasing Grant-in-Aid to other similarly placed teachers but in denying same benefits to petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination and such a denial is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of  India;  and  eighthly,  denial  of  grant-in-aid  and resultant salary despite eligibility in view of the GIA to PTA Rules, 2006 read with notifications dated 08.09.2014 and 04.06.2015 [Annexures A-4 and A-5] on same analogy on which, the State Authorities have released the Grant-in-aid and resultant salary to several other College Teachers, possessing similar qualifications [appointed by the Local PTAs and/or otherwise against vacant posts and were eligible], speaks  volumes  of  unfairness  and  arbitrariness  in State Action; and ninthly, the Grant-in-Aid and the resultant salary could only be denied, in case, the work, conduct and performance was not satisfactory, which has never been conveyed to the petitioner and  lastly,  the  denial  is  contrary  to  the  mandate  of law of this Court as detailed hereinunder. MANDATE OF LAW ON ADMISSIBILITY OF GRANT-IN-AID TO PTA PROVIDED TEACHERS:- 6(iv). While dealing with a similar fact-situation where the Lecturer in Colleges who were appointed on PTAs were directed to release Grant-in-Aid by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sangeeta Devi & Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors [CWP No. 2218 of 2018, decided on 11.03.2019] in following terms:- 3. The relief sought in the writ petition is a direction sought to be issued to the respondents to release grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner and payment thereof together with interest @ 9% per annum. The respondents may have discontinued the operation of the grant-in-aid scheme in favour of the PTA Teachers in the colleges on and w.e.f. 3.1.2008. The petitioners, except for petitioner No.1, no doubt, were appointed on and after that day. The respondents may have discontinued the operation of the grant-in-aid scheme in favour of the PTA Teachers in the colleges on and w.e.f. 3.1.2008. The petitioners, except for petitioner No.1, no doubt, were appointed on and after that day. The facts,  however,  remain  that  the  grant-in-aid Scheme has again been made applicable  in  the  Government  Colleges w.e.f. June 2004 as is apparent from the notification dated 8.9.2014 annexed to the written instructions. The notification Annexure-C reveals that in different colleges number of teachers have been appointed on PTA basis and the grant-in-aid is being released in their favour. 4. Being so, the petitioners being similarly situated and covered under the Scheme, are also entitled to the relief of grant-in-aid in their favour. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to release the grant-in-aid right from their initial appointment and make the payment thereof within two months from today, failing which together with interest @6% per annum, irrespective of their qualification  because  the  respondent-State  has  already  extended  the  time for improvement of qualification by the PTA appointed teachers till the year 2021. 6(iv-a). Learned  Counsel  draws  the  attention  of this Court that the State Authorities filed a Review State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Sangeeta Devi and others, in Review Petition No. 20 of 2020, decided on September 27, 2023, which was dismissed, in the following terms: 6. In the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Scheme has again been made applicable in the Government Colleges vide Notification dated 08.09.2014. It has not been stated in the impugned judgment that Scheme has been made applicable to all Colleges of the State. On the basis of Notification dated 08.09.2014, it has been observed that Scheme was made applicable to the Government Colleges, and this fact is not incorrect because in the year 2014 Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules/Policy was extended to 14 newly opened Government Colleges. In reply to the writ petition, it was stand of the respondents that Scheme, at relevant point of time, was not applicable to the Colleges, as it was discontinued on 03.01.2008. In this context, it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that Scheme was made applicable in Government Colleges, which  is  a  correct  fact  recorded  in the judgment, because admittedly, vide Notification dated 08.09.2014, Scheme was extended to newly opened 14 Degree Colleges. In this context, it has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that Scheme was made applicable in Government Colleges, which  is  a  correct  fact  recorded  in the judgment, because admittedly, vide Notification dated 08.09.2014, Scheme was extended to newly opened 14 Degree Colleges. It is also noticeable that extension of Scheme is only possible, if the same is in existence. With respect to discontinuation of the Scheme on 03.01.2008, no Notification has been placed on record either during pendency of the Writ Petition or alongwith  Review  Petition. It  is  also noticeable as evident from Annexure ‘C’ placed on record by the State during hearing of writ petition that there were large number of other Teachers working in various Colleges on PTA basis under the PTA Policy/Scheme, who were continued as such till 2015 when their services were taken over by the State, on contract basis vide Notification Dated 17.01.2015 and this fact also indicates that PTA Scheme was in existence and in force in Government Colleges and Teachers/Lecturers were being continued on PTA basis. There is material on record to establish that PTA Lecturers engaged in Government Colleges were being granted Grant-in-Aid under Rules whereas petitioners, doing the identical work as PTA Lecturers were being deprived from the same. 7. So far as plea of paucity of funds, seeking review of impugned judgment is concerned, is  not  a  valid  ground  for  review  of the impugned judgment. State cannot avoid  implementation  of  the  judgment of the Court on account of non-availability of funds. 8. To receive pay and wages as per entitlement is a right of an employee which is acquired by rendering service. Being a Model Employer State is expected to treat all similarly situated employees in like manner by paying equal emoluments to  all  employees  of  the  same  Class. Constitution mandates casting duty upon State to adhere to Article 14 of the Constitution of India by not acting arbitrarily. 9. Arbitrary  and  discriminatory  conduct of the State is antithesis to mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State must act in a fair manner as a Model Employer instead of contesting the cases like a chronic litigant. 10. 9. Arbitrary  and  discriminatory  conduct of the State is antithesis to mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State must act in a fair manner as a Model Employer instead of contesting the cases like a chronic litigant. 10. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practice exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue  with  practice  of  temporary/ ad-hoc appointments. 11. We are constrained to record aforesaid observations because PTA Teachers were engaged by the concerned PTA, for not appointing  or  posting  regular  Teachers/Lecturers in the Colleges and State, voluntarily, permitted to continue appointment on PTA basis by shirking from its responsibility to provide Teachers to avoid payment of remuneration to the Teachers, by appointing PTA Teachers, by adopting and practicing exploitative policies, which is not expected from the State being a Model Employer. 12. In paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that Scheme was made again applicable in the Government Colleges w.e.f. June 2004. In this line “2004” is a ministerial mistake as the Scheme was made applicable in 14 Colleges w.e.f. June 2014. However, this ministerial mistake  has  no  impact  on  the merit of the case and observation and finding recorded in impugned judgment have been recorded on the basis of material available on record. 13. With aforesaid observation, we do not find any illegality or perversity or any error apparent on the fact of record, warranting review of impugned judgment. 6(iv-b). Incompliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sangeeta Devi [supra], Director of Higher Education has implemented the judgment on 16.02.2024, by releasing Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner Sangeeta Devi, as aforesaid. 6(iv-c). 6(iv-b). Incompliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sangeeta Devi [supra], Director of Higher Education has implemented the judgment on 16.02.2024, by releasing Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner Sangeeta Devi, as aforesaid. 6(iv-c). Notably, while dealing with a similar case another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others in CWPOA No. 8120 of 2019, decided on 1.04.2025 after relying upon the judgment in the case Sangeeta Devi [Supra] has directed the State Authorities to grant salary under Grant-in-Aid to the aforesaid petitioner. 6(iv-d). Reliance is made to another judgement passed by this Court in the case of Himender Pal Kashav versus State of Himachal Pradesh and other CWPOA No 6651 of 20220, decided on 20.11.2024, wherein, claim for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary was accepted, with directions to the State Authorities to  release  Grant-in-Aid  to  the  petitioner  therein. On query, Learned Counsel for petitioner states that the judgment in the case of Himender Pal Kashav [supra] also stands implemented. LEGAL ENTITLEMENT FOR SALARY UNDER GRANT-IN-AID: 7. Given  as  above,  the  petitioner  being  eligible as per the Rules and upon due selection was appointed by Local PTA then, denial of salary under Grant-in-Aid is unreasonable, arbitrary, uncalled for and  is  unsustainable,  when,  firstly,  the  Respondents as well as PTA-SMC have acquiescenced in the appointment and continuance of petitioner for the last  more  than  twelve  years  now;  and  secondly, once the Respondents have utilized the services of petitioner as an Assistant Professor in State run Government College for years continuously then the vested right to receive salary for work performed becomes a legal entitlement, which could not be denied  by  the  Respondents-Employer  ;  and  thirdly, the salary for work performed becomes the legal entitlement of an employee, which cannot be negated without  giving  a  prior  notice  and  without  affording a  personal  hearing  is  illegal;  and  fourthly,  the  denial -deprivation of salary has visited the petitioner with civil consequences which could not be resorted to by acting in an arbitrary manner unknown in law; and  fifthly,  the  right  to  salary  for  work  performed falls within the ambit of property under Article 300-A  of  the  Constitution  of  India  and  the  right to property cannot be denied “except by authority of law”. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to establish that the salary was not admissible despite having worked and on the same analogy it has been granted/released to other PTA provided  teachers  in  Colleges  ;  and sixthly,  denial of salary, being a property, despite having extracted the work is an exploitative practice, like ‘begaar” and such inaction resulting in forcing the petitioner to  live  an  undignified  life  is  blatantly  violative of  Article  14,  16  and  21  of the  Constitution  of India  ;  and  seventhly,  denying  salary  despite  having taken the work from petitioner reveals inaction of State Authorities despite being a model employer; and   eighthly,   the   denial   of   salary   when,   the Respondents have made the petitioner to work as an Assistant Professor in Respondent No. 3 College till  day  is  ex-facie  unreasonable  and  arbitrary; and  ninthly,  denial  of  salary  when,  the  case  of  the petitioner is akin to the case of petitioners in case of Sangeeta Devi and Himender Pal Kashav [supra] [who were Assistant Professor under PTA  in a State  run  Government College; and  tenthly, the denial of salary to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination when, the State Authorities have released salary under GIA to PTA Rules to other Assistant Professors made available by PTAs-SMCs, including Sangeeta Devi and Himender Pal Kashav [supra] and the Respondents cannot shun away from extending similar treatment after having utilized services of petitioner as Assistant Professor, in Political Science, in  Pandit  Sant  Ram  Government  College,  Baijnath for about 12 years now, from the date of appointment/joining  and  had  worked  till  day  [as per Learned Counsel for petitioner]. Petitioner deserves parity in order to avoid the charge of discrimination and to ensure that in principle, the petitioner is extended same benefits as granted to Sangeeta Devi, Himender Pal Kashav (supra) and other similarly placed teachers-Assistant Professors provided by the PTAs-SMCs. Petitioner deserves parity in order to avoid the charge of discrimination and to ensure that in principle, the petitioner is extended same benefits as granted to Sangeeta Devi, Himender Pal Kashav (supra) and other similarly placed teachers-Assistant Professors provided by the PTAs-SMCs. Action of the Respondents in denying Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner herein,  as  given  to  others  is  declared  unreasonable, discriminatory, arbitrary and denial is deprecated and is accordingly interdicted by this Court; and lastly, the stand of the Respondents-State in the Reply-Affidavit that the petitioner is not eligible, as he does not possess 55% marks at Master’s Level in terms of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post of Assistant Professor [College Cadre] is not tenable, for the reason that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 2011, Annexure PA-2, stipulates that candidates belonging to reserved category i.e. Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe, shall be entitled for 5% relaxation [from 55% to 50% marks]. By virtue  of  the  Recruitment  and  Promotion  Rules vide Annexure PA-2, once the minimum educational qualification at Master’s Level in case of Scheduled Tribe candidates was 50% whereas the petitioner possessed 52.5% marks and he had also passed State Level Eligibility Test [SLET] prior to his appointment and the petitioner was fully eligible at the time of his appointment as an Assistant Professor and was appointed as such in Respondent No.3-College  on  26.09.2014  and  in  view  of  his  eligibility under the Rules the plea of the State Authorities that petitioner was not eligible cannot sustain. Ineligibility cannot be invoked contrary to the Rules and  the  stand  of  the  Respondents  is  accordingly set-aside. 8. Action of the State Authorities in denying Grant-in-aid and resultant salary, when, the eligibility and continuity of the petitioner in service since 26.09.2014 till day as Assistant Professor is not disputed by the Respondents. Moreover, once Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary has been given to other similarly  placed  Assistant  Professors  in  Colleges, who were appointed through PTA-SMC, then, denial of similar treatment amounts to hostile discrimination by resorting to exploitative practice cannot be permitted to operate. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary from the date of initial appointment as given to other similarly placed PTA College Teachers in the State to give effect to Articles 14, 16, 39 (d) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. No other point was argued/raised. DIRECTIONS: 11. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary from the date of initial appointment as given to other similarly placed PTA College Teachers in the State to give effect to Articles 14, 16, 39 (d) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. No other point was argued/raised. DIRECTIONS: 11. In view of above discussions and for the reasons recorded herein, the instant petition is allowed; in the following terms: (i) Action of the State Authorities-Respondents in denying Grant-in-Aid and the resultant salary for last 12 years to the petitioner as an Assistant Professor [Political Science] in Respondent No.3 College is declared unfair, arbitrary, illegal and is quashed and set-aside; (ii) State Authorities are directed to release Grant-in-Aid and the resultant salary to the petitioner from date of appointed on 26.09.2014 till day; as given to other similarly placed Assistant Professors in Colleges, including the petitioners in cases of Sangeeta Devi, Anupam, Himender Pal, Kashav [supra] without discriminating the petitioner from due date; (iii). State Authorities shall release Grant-in-Aid  and  resultant  salary  from due  date  to  the  petitioner  with all consequential benefits and monetary benefits within six weeks from today; (iv). Parties to bear their respective costs; In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), shall stand disposed of accordingly.