SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Dr. Latesh Kapoor - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 777 of 2019 with CWP Nos. 778 and 779 of 2019
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General & Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates Gener- al, Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Advocate

State cannot freeze grant-in-aid to deny aided college staff statutory revised pay benefits; college must pay actual arrears, government to provide grants if needed.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Employees) Act, 1994 - Section 6; Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affiliated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994 - Rule 8; Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008 (as amended) - Salaries of employees in aided colleges shall be as specified by State Government; object of grants is financial assistance till self-reliance; freezing grant-in-aid or counting benefits on notional basis post specified date cannot deny vested rights to revised pay scales at par with government college staff; additional benefits post freeze must be paid actually, not notionally. (Paras 3,4,17,18,19)

(B) Service conditions - Employer (aided college) primarily liable to pay due salaries/arrears as per statutory scales; if financially unable, State Government obligated to release grants to meet expenses; delay/laches not applicable where entitlement explained; society running aided college amenable to writ jurisdiction due to aid receipt and statutory governance. (Paras 20-24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners appointed as lecturers, promoted to associate professors, awarded selection scale from 1.1.2006 and eligible for Pay Band IV after three years; grant-in-aid earlier 95%, frozen as on 31.3.2008 with benefits post-date to be borne by college or counted notionally till 31.12.2013; college refused arrears citing notifications, government shifted responsibility.

Findings of Court:
Actual monetary benefits on account of arrears due to Pay Band IV from 1.5.2009 to 31.12.2013 to be paid by college within six weeks; if unable, college to approach government for grant release, to be considered positively within two weeks.

Issues: Whether government can restrict/freeze grant-in-aid denying salary benefits; who bears expense of revised pay arrears - college or government; validity of notional counting of benefits; applicability of delay and writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Act and rules mandate salaries per government scales with grants for deficit; freezing cannot override statutory obligations or vested rights; primary duty on employer, secondary on government via grants; prior judgments affirm parity with government college staff.

Result: Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitions clubbed to decide grant-in-aid restriction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evolution of grant-in-aid rules and amendments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. petitioners denied pay band iv benefits post-freeze. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. respondents cite freeze, financial distress, burden shift. (Para 12 , 13)
5. precedent affirms entitlement to government pay scales. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. state obligated for grants; college pays salaries. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. objections on delay, writ, notifications rejected. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. college to pay arrears; state aids if needed. (Para 25)

Judgment :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, same were tagged and heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order.

2. Precisely, the question which has fallen for adjudication before this Court is whether Government can restrict Grant-in-Aid or if it can, whether the salaries etc. of staff of Government aided college can be stopped/restricted. If not, who will defray the expenses. However, before adjudicating the aforesaid question, it may be apt to discuss and elaborate upon the relevant Acts, Rules and Notifications issued by the Government regarding salaries, Grant-in-Aid etc. to Government-aided colleges in Hima- chal Pradesh.

3. Section 6 of the H.P. Aided Colleges (Security of Services of Em- ployees) Act, 1994, provides as under:

“6. Salary. – The scales of pay and other allowance and privileges of the employees of a College shall be such as may, from time to time, be specified by the State Government.”

4. Under aforesaid Act, the Himachal Pradesh Non-Government Affi- liated Colleges Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1994 have been framed, rule 8 whereof provides as under:

““Quantum of the Grant-in-aid.- (a) The amount of grant-in-aid to be released to a College shall be limited to 95% of the deficit of the es- timated income (as detailed under) and the expenditure likely to be incurred on payment of the salary of the approved staff (Teaching and nonteaching) during one financial year subject to adjustments of over and under payments, in accordance with the norms at which the salary is being paid to the staff in Government Colleges. The re- quirements of Grant-in-aid in respect of the Colleges for the ensuing year shall be submitted by each College in the form of budget to the Director of Education by 31st October (on a date notified by the Di- rector) of each year, stating numbers of post of Principal, Lecturers (subject-wise), Superintendent, Assistant, Clerks and others and fi- nancial implications along with similar statistical data for at least two previous years with reasons to justify each increase and decrease.”

5. Vide Notification No. EDN-A-Ga(10)-5/98, dated 16th March, 2008, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Higher Education Department, in com- pliance to this Court’s direction dated 14.8.2006, passed in CWP No. 519 of 2000 titled Dr. Harish Lakhanpal & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, notified Himachal Pradesh Non-Government College Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2008. Rules 3 and 4, provided as under:

“3. Objects of Grants

The object of the grants in-aid contemplated by these rules is to financially assist non-Government colleges teaching. In arts, Commerce and Science subjects at under Graduate levels till they become self-reliant.

4. Extent of Application

Grants-in-Aid will be admissible for meeting, a part of the sala- ry expenses in respect of approved staff (teaching & non-teaching) Provided that the Grant-in-Aid to a College shall not exceed 50% of the revenue gap (total expenditure on salary of approved teaching and non-teaching staff minus the total income from all sources). The actual amount of Grant-in-Aid will however, depend upon the availability of resources and budgetary allocation with the Government for this purpose.”

6. Vide Notification dated 6th October, 2009, second amendment was made to above rules, thereby inserting following two provisos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top