( 2026:HHC:10886 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1308 of 2023 Decided on: 08.04.2026 Sumit Kumar Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. ______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and direction may very kindly be given to the respondents to release the Grant-in- Aid in favour of the petitioner with effect from 03.11.2017 alongwith the arrears and interest, in the interest of law and justice, as has been directed by this Hon’ble Court in Villam Singh’s Case. 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2026:HHC:10886 ) B. That the writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to release the arrears of Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 03.11.2017 till date alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. and the respondents be further directed to continuously release the same in future also. C. That the entire relevant record of the case may kindly be ordered to be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.” 2. The petitioner is praying for the grant of remuneration for the performance of his duties as Shashtri Teacher as from the date of his appointment, i.e., w.e.f. 03.11.2017, in terms of the Grant- in-Aid Rules, which is being denied to him on the ground that he was not appointed as per the procedure and is not possessing qualification for being appointed as a Shashtri. 3. Facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:- The petitioner was appointed as a Shashtri Teacher on SMC basis in Government Senior Secondary School, Mandap, District Mandi, H.P. vide Resolution dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure P- 2). He is continuing to serve against the said post. His grievance is that Grant-in-Aid is not being released to him and he is being paid only Rs.4500/- per month as salary. 3. ( 2026:HHC:10886 ) 4. The stand of the State is that the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee vide Resolution dated 21.11.2017 on an honorarium of Rs.4000/- per month, which has been enhanced to Rs.4500/- per month in the year 2022. According to the respondents, the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee of the concerned School de hors the SMC Policy by passing a simple resolution. Neither interview was conducted nor the post in question was advertised. According to the Department, as the petitioner did not possess the qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to be appointed against the post of Shashtri, therefore, he is not entitled for any Grant-in-Aid. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the reply filed by the State and the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that till the time the petitioner continues to serve in the School concerned as a Shashtri Teacher and performs his duties as such, the respondent-department cannot deny him Grant-in-Aid. It is not as if the petitioner was appointed in a private School. He was appointed in a Government School by the concerned School Management Committee. If the petitioner is not eligible and is not possessing the qualification for being appointed against the post of Shashtri, nothing prevents the respondent- 4. ( 2026:HHC:10886 ) Department from taking steps to do away with his service. However, the respondents cannot, on one hand, continue to allow the students of the concerned School to be taught by the petitioner and, on the other hand, deny him Grant-in-Aid, on reasons spelled out in the reply. 6. This Court in more than one cases has observed that it is a very sad state of affairs that the Education Department is indulging in adhocism and rather than appointing Teachers against sanctioned posts by following the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, is allowing such posts to be manned by persons appointed by PTA and SMC Committees, which arrangement is unheard of in service jurisprudence. 7. However, in light of the fact that the Department is permitting persons like the present petitioner to impart education, then at least till the time they are performing their duties, they cannot be denied the Grant-in-Aid and the Department is bound to pay Grant-in-Aid to such incumbents. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the act of the respondents of denying Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner, on the basis of reasons spelled out in the reply, is held to be bad in law. The respondents are directed to pay Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner as from 5. ( 2026:HHC:10886 ) the date of his engagement. It is clarified that this Court is not ratifying the engagement of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 08, 2026 (bhupender)