IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondent/department as a model employer to release Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner from the date of his appointment as a Drawing Master, highlighting the arbitrary and discriminatory denial of Grant-in-Aid.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Cmp No.3747 of 2024

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.

CWP No.4971 of 2021

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant in Aid Rules 2006 to the petitioner without any discrimination, from the date of initial appointment.

ii) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the present petition at par with the similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits and take a decision in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2549/2015 titled Hem Raj Sharma Vs. State of HP and CWP No.2638/2015 titled Devi Saran Vs. State of H.P. (Annexure P4 and P5).”

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Drawing Master in Government Senior Secondary School Dohag, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., after fulfilling all the codal formalities by the Parents Teachers Association (PTA). The grievance of the petitioner is that he continues to serve the respondents in the said school against the sanctioned post till date, however, no Grant-in-Aid is being released in his favour from his initial date of appointment and thus he is being discriminated against contrary to the law declared by this Court wherein Grant-in-Aid has been ordered to be paid to the teachers appointed through PTA like the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since his appointment by the PTA vide Annexure P1, dated 15.05.2010, the petitioner is performing the duties of a Drawing Master in the said school against a sanctioned post. There is no other Drawing Master appointed in the school. Though the Education Department is taking full advantage of the factum of his serving in the school and imparting education to the students concerned, yet Grant-in-Aid is not being released to the school for further release thereof to him, which is resulting in denial of the wages to which he is entitled to on account of his serving in the school having been appointed through PTA.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand has justified the act of the respondent-State by referring to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4. He has taken the Court to Paras 3 and 4 of the preliminary submissions thereof and submitted that the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis against a vacant post of Drawing Master on 15.05.2010 on monthly remuneration of Rs.1,000/- with the condition that his service will be terminated as and when a regular incumbent joins. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions and joined the Institution without any objection. The petitioner was engaged after the cessation of Grant-in-Aid to PTA Rules, 2006 and earlier than enforcement of the School Management Committee (SMC) Policy of 2012 and as the appointment of the petitioner was not in terms of any policy, therefore, he is not entitled for any Grant-in-Aid.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.

7. It is not much in dispute that the petitioner indeed was appointed after the Grant-in-Aid Policy was rescinded by the State w.e.f. 03.01.2008 and before the new SMC Policy was introduced in the year 2012. However, fact of the matter still remains that the petitioner was appointed by the PTA of the concerned Government school as a Drawing Master w.e.f. 15.05.2010. This appointment was not objected to by the department and in fact the acquiescence of the department vis-a-vis the appointment of the said teachers and his continuing to serve against a vacant post of Drawing Master is apparent from the fact that the petitioner is continuing to serve as such w.e.f. 15.05.2010 upto the t