The court held that a teacher in a private aided school, whose services were taken over by the state, is entitled to grant-in-aid for salary with payments limited to three years prior to filing due to delays.

JUDGMENT :

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) Directing the respondent No 1 to 3 to release 95% grant-in-aid in respect of salary/allowances and other consequential benefits to respondent no.5 school, particularly in the case of the applicant.

ii) Directing the respondents to pay salary and other allowances to the applicant at parity with teachers, working in Government School Cadre Lecturer from the due date i.e. 1-06-2002, till the applicant discharged his duties as lecturer (Economics) and the date of actual payment along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum and further directions be issued to the respondents to pay salary and allowances to the applicant in future at par with School Cadre Lecturer working in aided school.”

2. The facts as emerged from the pleadings are that the petitioner, vide office order dated 01.06.2002, was appointed as Lecturer in Economics in Vivekanand Model Senior Secondary School, Raja-Ka-Talab, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (H.P.) by the Managing Committee of respondent No.5, after following due process of law. The petitioner was possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post and further, the school in which he was appointed was in receipt of 95% grant-in-aid from the respondents-State. Though the petitioner had discharged his duties in the School, but the grant-in-aid was not released to him by the respondents-State.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents-State had preferred the writ petition before this Court bearing CWP No.3787 of 2011-D, titled, Sushil Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , which came to be withdrawn by him, reserving liberty to file afresh before the appropriate forum and this Court had granted the permission and held that the question of limitation would not come in his way. The relevant para of the order reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seek permission to withdraw the present petition, reserving liberty to file afresh before the appropriate forum. Permission granted. Needless to add, since the petitioner had been pursuing the petition here, question of limitation would not come in his way. As such, present petition, stands disposed of as withdrawn, so also pending application(s), if any.”

4. After withdrawal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed the original application before the learned Tribunal, which came before this Court as the present petition.

5. The respondents-State filed reply to the petition and averred that the petitioner was engaged by the concerned private school management on their own on fixed remuneration. Moreover, the respondent-State has taken over all the 95% aided private schools with or without movable and immovable assets and the employees pursuant to taking over policy guidelines dated 20.07.2011. It has further been averred that this Court in its order dated 23.11.2011 passed in COPC No.351 of 2011 in CWP No.7885/2010 has ruled that the obligation of the Government to release the GIA will arise only in case the appointment is made in terms of rules and not otherwise. Hence, the applicant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present original application. Further it has been submitted that the School, where the petitioner was appointed, has been taken over by the Government without its assets vide Notification dated 20.04.2012 and there are many other such schools which have not handed over their assets and such schools are still functioning. The petitioner was engaged by private management i.e. respon