2026:HHC:9183 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6846 of 2013 Decided on: 30.03.2026 Shri Devki Nandan Pandey …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from acting upon order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure P-3) and to treat the same as non est and to pay the petitioner his arrears of pay and allowances as per the grant-in-aid paid to other employees of the school with all consequential benefits and interest at the market rate and a direction order be issued to quash the said order (Annexure P- 3).” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:9183 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that as per the petitioner, he was engaged as a Shastri and Yoga Teacher by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3-school. His grievance is that despite the fact that he continued to serve as such, grant-in-aid was not released in his favour by the respondents though the school was identified as one of the schools which were entitled to receive 95% grant-in-aid. To cut the controversy short, the petitioner earlier also approached the Court and in light of the directions passed by the Court, a decision was taken by the Director of Elementary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 06.02.2013, which is under challenge. In terms of this decision, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds:- “The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to held in COPC 351/2011 in CWP7985/2011 titled as Ravinder Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others on 23.11.2011 as under:- The teachers and learned counsel for the teachers submit that in many of the aided schools, teachers who have been appointed as per the sanctioned strength, are not being paid the grant-in-aid. We find from the Grant-in-Aid Rule that the appointment is to be made by the Committee. The obligation of the government to release the grant-in-aid will arise only in case the appointment is made in 3 2026:HHC:9183 terms of the rules and not otherwise. In Civil Writ Petition No 2319 of 2012-B with Ex. Petition No 834& 835 of 2004 & CWP No. 1294 of 2006 the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to held that:- "The respondent No 1&2 to take appropriate action to work out and disburse the eligible grant-in-aid to the members of the teaching and non teaching staff appointed under the 3d respondent School as permissible under the staffing pattern, as approved by the government," I have carefully gone through the record produced by the petitioner. Due and admissible Grant-in-aid to the post of Shastri in Middle Unit of Mohan Middle School Solan has been released to Sh. Gopal Ram Shastri against the permissible post in Middle Unit. The post of Shastri with additional work of Yoga Teacher is not permissible in Primary Unit of this school as per provisions of Grant-in-aid Rule 1997. Keeping in view the position explained above. I do not find any merit in the representations of the petitioner and the same is rejected accordingly.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner though has made an endeavour to submit that the reasons assigned by the Authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner are not sustainable as the petitioner is liable to be paid grant-in-aid for performing his duties in a school which was entitled to receive the grant-in-aid but it could not be demonstrated that the findings returned in the order under 4 2026:HHC:9183 challenge by the Authority that one Shri Gopal Ram was serving as Shastri teacher, to whom the grant-in-aid was released, were incorrect findings. 4. This Court is of the considered view that simply because a school where the petitioner was imparting education, was one identified to receive the grant-in-aid from the Education Department, this does not make per se every teacher engaged there entitled to receive wages from grant-in-aid. In fact, besides the teachers being appointed as per the grant-in-aid scheme in ratio with the strength of students which are there in the school, another obvious requirement is that the grant-in-aid can be released to the school only with regard to sanctioned strength/recognized strength of teachers and not for those teachers, who are engaged by the school over and above the strength entitled for grant-in-aid. Herein, obviously, the grant-in-aid has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the same already stood released to one Shri Gopal Ram, Shastri against the “permissible post in middle unit”. As this fact could not be disputed during the course of arguments, the decision of the Authority cannot be faulted with. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that grant-in-aid or no grant-in-aid, when a teacher is engaged by a school on terms and conditions, it is for the 5 2026:HHC:9183 school to honour the said terms and conditions and the onus cannot be shifted to the Government in each and every case, as is the endeavour herein of the petitioner that his salary shal be paid under grant-in-aid. 5. Accordingly, in light of above observations, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case some subsequent material comes in the hand of the petitioner, liberty be granted to him that he may approach the Authority in light of the fact that he is now a senior citizen. The liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 30, 2026 (narender)