Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16819 (HP)

Deepika Jain v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-01-09

Ranjan Sharma

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Deepika Jain had initially filed an Original Application No.2986 of 2018 before the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter has now come up on transfer to this Court, as CWPOA No. 4542 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) That respondents may very kindly be directed to issue grant-in-aid in favour of the applicant from the date when same was released in favour of the similarly situated persons as mentioned in Annexure A-4 and to grant all consequential benefits from the due date. (ii) That respondents may very kindly be directed not to appoint or replace the applicant through regular hand or by any other mode. (iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to bring the applicant on contract basis and to regularize her services as per their policy framed for the persons appointed on PTA basis. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is that in view of educational qualification [as in Annexure A-3], the petitioner being Post Graduate and MPhil after due selection, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Political Science, through PTA basis, in Government Decree College, Nalagarh in the year 2000. It is averred that in 2003, her services were terminated illegally due to the posting of a regular incumbent but in pursuance to Advertisement dated 04.08.2013 [Annexure P-1] and after due selection petitioner was appointed/re-engaged as an Assistant Professor in subject of Political Science through PTA and she joined as such on 16.08.2013 in said College. 2(i). It is averred that Principal Secretary (Hr Edu) issued a communication on 26.07.2014 [Annexure A-5] that the qualification of NET/ SLET shall not be required for teachers provided by Parents teachers Association and this decision was reasserted by the State Authorities on 06.08.2014 [Annexure A-5 colly] that qualification of NET/SLET will not be insisted upon, in case of engagement of PTA provided College Teachers in the State. In this backdrop, the case of petitioner is that though she is working as Assistant Professor [earlier called as Lecturer] in Government Degree College Nalagarh through PTA but the State- Authorities have not released salary under Grant- in-Aid to the petitioner on the analogy on which the same has been released in case of other PTA provided College Teachers. In this backdrop, the case of petitioner is that though she is working as Assistant Professor [earlier called as Lecturer] in Government Degree College Nalagarh through PTA but the State- Authorities have not released salary under Grant- in-Aid to the petitioner on the analogy on which the same has been released in case of other PTA provided College Teachers. In this backdrop, the petitioner has prayed that the denial of salary under Grant-in-Aid from date of joining on 16.08.2013 as granted to others is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 28.05.2018, the State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 24.08.2018 of Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Reply-affidavit admits that the petitioner was engaged as Lecturer in Political Science in Govt Degree College Nalagarh on 24.07.2000 and was paid out of the amalgamated fund. Reply-Affidavit indicates that the petitioner was engaged on Local PTA on 16.08.2013 and she worked till December 2017. Reply-Affidavit states that petitioner possesses Master degree in Political Science with 55% marks and is also M-Phil but she does not possess the NET/SLET qualification. However, it is averred that the State Authorities have released the salary under Grant-in- Aid to the teachers appointed by PTA in the newly opened 14 Colleges in the State vide notification dated 8.09.2014 and 4.06.2015. In this backdrop, State Authorities have opposed the prayer for salary under Grant-in-Aid on the ground that petitioner was not eligible for the post of Assistant Professor as she did not fulfill the educational qualifications with the further prayer to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard, Mr. R.S. Chandel, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents. Though Respondent No 4 stands served, but none has put in appearance. ANALYSIS: 5. 4. Heard, Mr. R.S. Chandel, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents. Though Respondent No 4 stands served, but none has put in appearance. ANALYSIS: 5. 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 Govt Degree College Nalagarh from 16.08.2013 despite being eligible and even such eligibility was reinforced [in terms of decisions dated 26.07.2014 and 06.08.2014, dispensing with NET/SET in case of PTA’s provided teachers, vide Annexure A-5] and the petitioner is held entitled for salary under the Grant-in-Aid from the date of appointment or date of eligibility in tune with the decisions in Annexure P-5 (supra), for the following reasons:- DENIAL OF GRANT-IN-AID DESPITE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS IN RULES- UNTENABLE: 5(i). The State-Authorities cannot deny salary under Grant-in-Aid to the petitioners 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. Pertinently, petitioner possessed the Masters Degree in Political Science and was MPhil and was appointed on post of Assistant Professor in Political Science in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.08.2013 [Annexure P-1] after due selection, and after testing her eligibility and she joined in Government Degree College Nalagarh on 16.08.2013. Pertinently, petitioner possessed the Masters Degree in Political Science and was MPhil and was appointed on post of Assistant Professor in Political Science in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.08.2013 [Annexure P-1] after due selection, and after testing her eligibility and she joined in Government Degree College Nalagarh on 16.08.2013. While working as such, Respondents took a decision on 26.07.2014, which was reiterated on 06.08.2014, dispensing with the requirement of NET/SET, in case of PTA’s provided teachers [as per Annexure A-5, colly] and the petitioner continued to serve till day but denial of salary under grant- in-aid, despite being eligible in view of Annexure P-5 (supra), and despite having worked against vacant post is contrary to the GIA to PTA Rules read with the decisions contained in the communications dated 26.07.2014, reiterated on 06.08.2014 [dispensing with NET/SET, in case of PTA’s provided teachers, vide Annexure A-5 colly]. The action of Respondents in denying Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner from the date of eligibility [in terms of decisions dated 26.07.2014 and 06.08.2014, dispensing with NET/SET in case of PTA’s provided teachers, Annexure A-5] whereas the Respondnets have released grant-in-aid and resultant salary to other similarly placed teachers, possessing similar qualifications in other Colleges in the State is ex-facie discriminatory, uncalled for and illegal. DENIAL OF SALARY UNDER GRANT-IN-AID IGNORING RULES UNTENABLE: 5(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: 5(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: 5(iii). Plea of the State Authorities in the Reply- Affidavit 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 [Annexure A-5, supra] 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:- 5(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. 5(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. 5(iv-b). Incompliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sangeeta Devi [supra], the 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. 5(iv-c). 5(iv-b). Incompliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sangeeta Devi [supra], the 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. 5(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. 5(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: 6. 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: 6. Given as above, once the Respondent No 3-College advertised the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science, and being eligible as per the Rules and upon due selection the petitioner 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 since 16.08.2013 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 lastly, 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 Government Degree College, Nalagarh for about 12 years now, from the date of appointment/joining from 18.08.2013 till December 2017 [as per Reply] 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. 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. 7. 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. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled for Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary from the date of initial appointment {if qualified at that time} and /or date of eligibility in view of Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules 2006 read with decision in Annexure P-5 {NET/SET was dispensed with for PTA Teachers}, whichever is beneficial; 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. 8. No other point was argued/raised. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussions and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms :- (i) Action of the State Authorities in denying Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner as Assistant Professor /Lecturer in Govt Degree College Nalagarh is quashed and set- aside; (ii) Action of State Authorities in denying salary after utilising her services for 12 years since 16.08.2013 is declared illegal, arbitrary and is quashed and set aside; (iii) State Authorities are mandated to release the Grant-in-Aid and resultant salary to the petitioner, as released to other College Lecturers/Assistant Professors, without discrimination, from 16.8.2013 or such like due date in Para 7 supra, in the light of the judgment in Sangeeta Devi and Himender Pal Kashav and findings in para 5 and 6 (supra); (iv). State Authorities shall release Grant- in-Aid and resultant salary from due date(as in direction no (iii) above; with all consequential relief within six weeks from today; (v). Parties to bear their respective costs; In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.