IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6846 of 2013 Decided on: 30.03.2026 Shri Devki Nandan Pandey . …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and othefrs … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

_____________________________________________________

For the petitioner : Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents-

State.

: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.

3.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia iprayed for the following relief:-

“(i) That a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from acting upon order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure P-3) and to treat the same as non est and to pay the petitioner his arrears of pay and allowances as per the grant-in-aid paid to other employees of the school with all consequential benefits and interest at the market rate and a direction order be issued to quash the said order (Annexure P-

3).”

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that as per the petitioner, he was engaged as a Shastri and Yoga Teacher by the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3-school. His grievance is that despite the fact that he continued to serve as such, grant-in-aid was not released in his favour by the respondents though the school was identified as one of the schools which were entitled to receive 9u5% grant-in-aid. To cut the controversy short, the petitioner eoarlier also approached the Court and in light of the directions passed by the Court, a decision was taken by the Director of Elementary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, ohn 06.02.2013, which is under challenge. In terms of this decision, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds:-

H “The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to held in COPC 351/2011 in CWP7985/2011 titled as Ravinder Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others on

23.11.2011 as under:-

The teachers and learned counsel for the teachers submit that in many of the aided schools, teachers who have been appointed as per the sanctioned strength, are not being paid the grant-in-aid. We find from the Grant-in-Aid Rule that the appointment is to be made by the Committee. The obligation of the government to release the grant-in-aid will arise only in case the appointment is made in terms of the rules and not otherwise.

In Civil Writ Petition No 2319 of 2012-B with Ex. Petition No 834& 835 of 2004 & CWP No. 1294 of 2006 the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to held that:-

"The respondent No 1&2 to take appropriate action to work out and disburse the eligible grant-in-aid to the members of the teaching and non teaching staff appointed under the 3d respondent School as permisusible under the staffing pattern, as approved by the government,"

I have carefully gone through the record produced by the petitioner.

CDue and admissible Grant-in-aid to the post of Shastri in Middle Unit of Mohan Middle School Solan has been released to Sh. Gopal Ram Shastri against the permissible post in Middle Unit. The post of Shastri with additional work of Yoga Teacher is not permissible in Primary Unit of this school as per provisions of Grant-in-aid Rule i 1997. Keeping in view the position explained above. I do not find any merit in the representations of the petitioner and the same is rejected accordingly.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner though has made an endeavour to submit that the reasons assigned by the Authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner are not sustainable as the petitioner is liable to be paid grant-in-aid for performing his duties in a school which was entitled to receive the grant-in-aid but it could not be demonstrated that the findings returned