IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4499 of 2020 Date of Decision: 5.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________

Madan Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr.

Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, oDeputy Advocates General, for the State.

Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

h By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:

“i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and the respondents to pay Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner in view of the Grant-in-Aid Rules, 2006 from due date with arrears and interest thereupon.”

2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioner, who otherwise now stands regularized against the post of Shastri in the Education Department, was initially appointed on PTA basis pursuant to resolution dated 17.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Government Senior Secondary School Partha, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Though petitioner h.as been continuously imparting education to the students in the school detailed herein above from the date of his initial appoi.ntment, but fact remains that despite there being repeated requests, no Grant-in-Aid was released, as a result thereof, petitioner herein was compelled to impart education to the students oin the subject of Shastri on the meager salary of Rs. 5000/-, till the year 2021, whereafter his services were converted into government contract. After completion of three years service on contract, petitioner herein now stands regularized against the post of Shastri and at present is posted at Government high School, Samatar, Chamba.

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since prior to his services being regularized, petitioner worked as Shastri for more than 15 years on PTA basis, necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondents to release Grant-in-Aid qua the afore period.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed reply, wherein though factum with regard to petitioner’s appointment on PTA basis vide resolution dated 17.9.2009 has been not disputed, but an attempt has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner as put forth in the petition on the ground that petitioner was not paid salary out of the PTA funds, rather expenditure qua his salary was being borne by SNS Foundation.

Alongwith reply, certain documents have been placed on .record suggestive of the fact that principal of the school concerned expressed his gratitude to SNS Foundation for providing financia.l help/salary of some of the employees including the petitioner. It is not in dispute that pursuant to petitioner’s having served on PTA basis, his services were initially converted into governmoent contract and thereafter, were regularized after completion of two years contractual services.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that petitioner herein after his having possessed requisite qualification for the post of Shastri was appointed as Shastri at Government Senior Secondary School Partha, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on PTA basis on 17.9.2009. With effect from afore date, petitioner kept on discharging duties in the school concerned on PTA basis till the year 2021 when his services were taken over on