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

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA


CWP No.1724 of 2020


Decided on: 08 th May, 2026


Krishan Kumar. .. Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others ...Respondents


Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge


For the petitioner: rMr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondenuts: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General.


08 th May, 2026


( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )


Judge


(ankit)

Petitioner Advocates:Karan Singh Parmar Rashmi Parmar Kush Sharma Abhishek Thakur Mohit Dogra ,Respondent Advocate: AG

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:15808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1724 of 2020

Decided on: 08 th May, 2026 __________________________________________________________________ Krishan Kumar. .. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents

_________________________________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: rMr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondenuts: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has

sought direction to the respondents to re-engage him as

gPhysical Education Teacher (hereinafter referred to as “PET”)

in Government Senior Secondary School Saddun Bargran (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) with all consequential

benefits.

2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as PET on Parent Teacher Association (hereinafter referred to as “PTA”) basis w.e.f.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 08:54:07 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

01.11.2004. However, his services were terminated vide ofÏce

order dated 03.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) on joiningP of a regular hand. Later on, the State Government had take.n the decision to engage all those PTA appointees, whose services were disengaged for the reasons other than a departmental inquiry. The petitioner on the basis of the said decision taken by the State Government, made a representation to the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Civil), Kangra, who vide Inquiry Report dated 30.11.2014, came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever issued any show-cause notice before withholding of the pay out of PTA GIA. The statement of the Principal of the School that the

H petitioner was not appointed as per PTA GIA Policy, 2006, is also not tenable in view of the letter dated 22.05.2014, which states that the Government had decided to re-engage all the PTA provided teachers who were engaged before 31.12.2007 and whose services were discontinued due to the reasons other than the inquiry committee, if they are otherwise

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 08:54:07 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

eligible as per the R&P Rules and GIA be released in their

favour. P

3. It was also noticed in the inquiry r.eport that the post of DPE was lying vacant in the School and the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Civil), Kangra, had recommended that the Principal of the School may re-engage the petitioner on the post of DPE, if otherwise eligible as per the R&P Rules of the Department of Education Government of H.P. Despite the said decision having been taken by the competent authority, the petitioner was not re-engaged on the post of DPE. The petitioner despite approaching the authorities was not re- engaged and thereafter he has approached this Court

H seeking direction to the respondents to re-engage him as PET in the School with all consequential benefits.

4. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.6279 of 2021, titled, Bal Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 01.07.2022, wherein this Court had given directions to the

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 08:54:07 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

respondents to re-engage the petitioner as PET on PTA basis

in the same school, where the petitioner was wPorking and since the petitioner is similarly situate and wa.s also working in the same School where Sh. Bal Ram was appointed, he may

also be extended the same relief.

5. The respondents filed reply to the petition through respondent No.2 and averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as PET on PTA basis in the respondent- Department i.e. at Government High School Saddun Bargran, District Kangra, H.P. on 01.11.2004 (wrongly mentioned as 01.11.2024). Thereafter, the said school was upgraded to the level of Government Senior Secondary School Saddun

H Bargran, District Kangra, H.P. and pe

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