2026:HHC:3298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.4051 of 2020 Decided on: 02.01.2026 ________________________________________________________ Mohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Mohan Singh, had filed OA No.1189 of 2018, before the State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.4051 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs:- (i). That the respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate applicant as TGT (Arts) under PTA, Grant-in-Aid, in Govt. Middle School-Bella under complex Govt. Sr. Sec. School Shillai, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, with past seniority, salary under grant-in-aid and all other service benefit from date of initial appointment/joining w.e.f. August 2007 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:3298 - 2 - till re-engagement hereinafter with all consequential benefits forthwith. (ii). That the respondent may kindly be directed to ensure parity in service to the applicant as given to other similar persons and working in other schools through the State.” 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner was appointed as TGT (Arts) in August 2007 in Government Middle School Bella under Complex Government Sr. Sec. School Shillai, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour, on PTA GIA teachers. It is averred that the petitioner is eligible for the post of TGT (Arts) as per the certificates enclosed vide Annexures A-1 to Annexure A-4. It is averred that after 23.08.2010, the petitioner was not allowed to work in view of the joining of a regular teacher in his place. It is averred that the Government issued a Notification on 22.05.2014 [Annexure A-5], whereby Government decided to reengage all PTA provided teachers who were engaged before 31.12.2007 and whose services were dis-continued due to other reasons in case they were eligible for the said post. It is further averred that based on the communication 2026:HHC:3298 - 3 - dated 22.05.2014 [Annexure A-5], the State Authorities have extended the benefit of re-engagement to other PTA provided teacher namely, Rajesh Kaundliya, on 22.10.2016 [Annexure A-6]. Reference is also made to another teacher Dinesh Kumar who were re-engaged in December, 2016 [Annexure A-7]. It is further averred that since nothing was done, therefore, the petitioner filed CWP No.9914 of 2014 which was directed to be decided as representation by the respondents. Perusal of the averments in the petition indicate that State Authorities have not granted the benefit of re- engagement in terms of the communication dated 22.05.2014 [Annexure A-5] as granted to other teachers vide Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7 on the ground that due to pendency of SLP [Civil Appeal No.2813 of 2017] titled Chander Negi and others versus State of H.P., and interim orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the Civil Appeal stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Annexure A-9, therefore, the respondents were bound to grant similar treatment as have been 2026:HHC:3298 - 4 - granted to Rajesh Kaundliya and Dinesh Kumar, as referred to above by re-engaging the petitioner as TGT (Arts) and by extending all service benefits including continuity and Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner. 3. 3. Though, notice was issued to the respondents in the instant petition but since the filing of instant petition [on 18.03.2018] no reply has been filed till day. Hence the present order. 4. Heard, Mr. Sham Singh Chauhan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Seema Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondents and have gone through the material available on record. 5. During the pendency of the instant petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the fact that after dismissal of SLP, the petitioner was re-engaged and even stands regularized on 18.11.2022 [Taken on Record]. 6. In the above scenario, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that only surviving grievance is that the petitioner was engaged as a TGT (Arts) 2026:HHC:3298 - 5 - through PTA in August 2007 and had worked till August 2010 and though, the period beyond August 2010 stands regularized and even the Grand-in-Aid stands released to the petitioner [who has now been regularized] but Grant-in-Aid due for the period from August 2007 to August 2010 and continuity in service is yet to be accorded to the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondents re-look into the entire issue, in view of the above subsequent developments. 8. Per contra, Learned State Counsel states that admissibility of Grant-in-Aid and continuity in service for the period from August 2007 to August 2010 needs to be examined, in accordance with applicable norms. 9. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and in view of the prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Leaving all questions open, this Court disposes of the instant petition with the following directions: (i). As prayed, petitioner shall submit a 2026:HHC:3298 - 6 - representation to Director of School Education [earlier Director of Elementary Education], ventilating his grievance(s) with respect to the claim for continuity in service including Grant-in- Aid from August 2007 till 2010, within six weeks from today; (ii). Upon receipt of representation, the State Authorities shall consider/examine the claim and pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter; (iii). Needless to say, that this Court, has not adverted to the rival claims/contentions nor adjudicated upon the entitlement of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid or continuity in service from August 2007 to August 2010; which is left to be examined by the State Authorities hereinafter in accordance with law; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition along with miscellaneous application(s), if any, is disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 02, 2026 [Shivender]