Termination of PTA teacher's engagement without show cause notice, defying prior grant-in-aid directions, is arbitrary, violates natural justice and Article 14; mandates quashing and retrospective re-engagement with full benefits.

JUDGMENT :

JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, J.

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

“(a) That the impugned Annexure A-1, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to re- engage the applicant retrospectively with all consequential benefits in the same capacity, pay scale and place and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of HP may kindly be directed to be implemented in its letter and spirit.

(b) That in alternate the respondent may kindly be further directed to re-engage the applicant on any of the vacancies available in the schools in Distt. Bilaspur, H.P., as has already been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of H.P.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT Science) in Government Senior Secondary School Gandhir, District Bilaspur, H.P. by respondents No.4 and 5 against a vacancy on 06.01.2006.

3. When the petitioner was not released the grant-in- aid w.e.f. 2006, the date of her appointment against vacancy, she had approached this Court by way of CWP No.8692 of 2012, titled, Lata Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others. This writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.2015, noticing in unequivocal words that the respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner is working since 02.09.2002 and further it is not denied that she is working against the vacant post w.e.f. 06.01.2006. The only reason for not paying the honorarium to the petitioner was that the PTA Committee had engaged her prior to the Rules i.e. PTA Grant-in-Aid Rules 2006 (for short “PTA GIA, Rules”) and at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the post of TGT (Non-Medical) was not vacant in the school. The said stand was negated by this Court, holding that once the respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioner had been appointed against a vacancy w.e.f. 06.01.2006. The petitioner had claimed the arrears of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 2006 and not from the date of her initial appointment in the year 2002. It was also recorded that the respondents do not dispute the factum that the petitioner has not been discharging her duties diligently, honestly and faithfully and in such circumstances, she is entitled to the grant-in-aid. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:-

“9. The matter can be looked from a different angle. Indisputably the petitioner had been appointed and assigned the duties to teach the students and such duties have been continuously performed by her. Then can the respondents, who are model employers, be permitted to act with total lack of sensitivity and indulge in “Begar” which is specifically prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

10. The State government is expected to function like a model employer, who is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected candour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has social obligation to treat an employee in an appropriate manner so that an employee is not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit its employee and take advantage of their helplessness and misery. In the present case the conduct of the respondents falls short of expectation of a model employer.

11. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner has