2026:HHC:7135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.661 of 2019 Decided on: 12 th March, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Joginder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Parveen Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. C.N Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity of Rs.3,02,975/- and leave encashment of Rs.2,71,730/-. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) with respondent No.3-School on 11.04.1983 and has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. 3. Respondent No.3-School was in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from respondents No.1 and 2 and remaining 5% was contributed by respondent No.3-School from its own resources to the Teachers and allied staff. It has been averred that the entitlement to the aid from the State to the extent of 95% is in terms of the judgment dated 09.09.1992 passed by this Court in CWP No.413/1989 (Annexure P-1). The judgment passed by this Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1233-34 of 1993 on 10.05.1995. 4. It has been averred that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity and leave encashment from the respondents besides other retiral benefits. Out of the total amount of Rs.3,80,422/- towards gratuity, a sum of 3 Rs.47,025/- has been paid to the petitioner through Life Insurance Corporation and the remaining amount is Rs.3,02,975/- and no amount towards Leave encashment was paid and thus an amount of Rs.2,71,730/- is payable to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have released the amount of gratuity and leave encashment amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- each to Shri Om Prakash, retired as Superintendent from the school in January, 2009 and also to Shri Surender Dutt retired as Principal from the school in December 2003. However, despite making representation by the petitioner to the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity and leave encashment, no amount has been released in his favour. 6. The respondents-State has framed a policy governing the amount due towards gratuity and since the petitioner is entitled to the benefits even prior to 2008 being regular employee of respondent No.3-School, there is no bar 4 in the scheme for claiming gratuity for the period of service rendered by him. 7. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply/afÏdavit and have taken a plea that the maintenance grants are provided for meeting the deficit in the net approved expenditure on salary of approved staff of privately managed schools. So far as grant-in-aid is concerned, it is released exclusively for salary component and the same cannot be utilized for any other purposes. As per the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, there is no provision for the payment of gratuity and leave encashment from State exchequer to the petitioner. 8. It has been submitted that the State has not released any grant towards gratuity and leave encashment to one Sh. Om Prakash, who was stated to have received the amount. 9. The State Government has notified Himachal Pradesh Privately Managed Recognized Government Aided & Private School Employees (Self Contributory) Pension and 5 Gratuity Scheme, 2008, and under Section 6 of the said scheme, a provision is made for contribution towards pension funds. As per this scheme, it shall be mandatory for all the employees, who are recruited on or after 01.04.2008 to become member of the Scheme. Each employee shall required to pay a monthly contribution of Rs.500/- per month and since the petitioner has not made any contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund, he is not entitled to any grant towards gratuity/pension and leave encashment from the State. 10. Respondent No.3 has filed a separate reply, wherein it has been stated that so far as the release of gratuity and leave encashment to Sh. Om Parkash and Sh. Surender Dutt is concerned, the same is a matter of record. 11. Since respondent No.3-School is in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid, when the respondent-School receives 95% aid with regard to release of amount towards gratuity as well as leave encashment, the same shall be paid to the petitioner 6 without any further delay. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the respondents-State as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 and also gone through the case file carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3-School is in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. The respondents have also not disputed the engagement of the petitioner with respondent No.3-School on 11.04.1983 and thereafter his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011. The only issue which requires to be adjudicated is whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of gratuity and leave encashment and, if so, from whom. 14. As already recorded above, since there is no dispute with respect to 95% grant-in-aid by the State to respondent No.3-School, and further the petitioner had discharged his duties in respondent No.3-School, the 7 petitioner is entitled to the said amount of gratuity and leave encashment since he had rendered the services with respondent No.3-School. The respondent-State has though disputed the release of any grant towards gratuity and leave encashment to Shri Om Prakash, retired superintendent, but there is no dispute regrading release of the amount of gratuity and leave encashment in favour of one Shri Surender Dutt, retired Principal. Once one of the employee has already been released grant of amount of gratuity and leave encashment, parity demands that the similar treatment be given to the petitioner. 15. The issue which is raised in the present petition had also come up before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6995 of 2024 titled, Shramja Munjal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others a/w CWP No.14163 of 2024, titled, Dr. Anita Khanna vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.12.2025, wherein the Coordinate Bench after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench 8 in CWP No.6807 of 2014, titled, Jamila Khan vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.11.2014 and also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.19436 of 2024, titled, Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tan. And Distt. Wardha & Ors., has held that aided school teachers are governed by the service conditions under State Government and thus are entitled for pension/provident fund and gratuity as applicable in accordance with the rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 16. Since the issue raised in the present petition has already been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and direction has been given to release 95% grant-in- aid towards amount of leave encashment as well as amount of gratuity to the respondents-State, parity demands that similar treatment be given to the petitioner. 17. Learned Advocate General has vehemently argued 9 that so far the amount of gratuity is concerned, the State is not bound to pay the same. However, since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already noticed in the aforesaid judgment that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of gratuity stands already paid to one of the petitioners by the respondents-State and further in the present case too, the retired Principal of the same School has been paid the amount of gratuity and thus the petitioner is also held entitled to the same benefit. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to release the amount of gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner. In case the amount of gratuity and leave encashment is not released in favour of the petitioner within three months from today, it shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its payment. 10 19. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge