1

Whether approved for reporting?

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

CMP No.11826 of 2026

For the reasons stated therein, the present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and stands disposed of.

2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage, today itself.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

(A) That the writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued and the respondents may be directed to extend the benefits of PTA Grant In Aid Rules, 2006 to the petitioner without any discrimination and consequently release the Grant-In-Aid in his favour from the date of his initial appointment alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.

(B) That the respondents may be further directed to continue releasing the Grant-In-Aid in favour of the petitioner in future also, in accordance with law.

(C) That the respondents may further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on the completion of requisite number of years of service in terms of various regularization policies of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as applicable to respondent Department.

4. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-3, the petitioner was appointed by the Parents Teachers Association of the Government Senior Secondary School Samloti, District Kangra, H.P., as a Drawing Master. The Principal of the School was also a signatory to his appointment letter. His grievance is that despite the fact that the petitioner continues to serve against the post of Drawing Master till date, grant-in-aid is not being paid to him. It is in this backdrop that the reliefs mentioned hereinabove are being claimed by the petitioner.

5. The stand of the Department is that in view of the provisions of the PTA Rules, 2006, coupled with certain directions which at the relevant time were given by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.2 wrote to all the Deputy Directors on 03.10.2006 to ensure the compliance of the order of the learned Administrative Tribunal qua GIA Rules. The PTAs were required to display the vacancy position and the venue and date of the interview on the notice board concerned of the Gram Panchayats. Further, the PTAs were to engage Teachers provided they had sufficient funds by giving due publicity to the post in issue to be filled. As per the respondents, in the present case, as the petitioner was engaged by the PTA in violation of the instructions of the Government, therefore, the members of the PTAs were solely responsible to grant salary to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was fully eligible to be appointed against the post of Drawing Master when he was appointed as such. He further submitted that since 09.09.2008, the petitioner is imparting education to the students of the School in issue and, if the appointment of the petitioner was bad in law, then, nothing prevented the Department from dispensing with his services. However, the very fact that the petitioner has been allowed to continue on the said post for almost 18 years demonstrates that there is no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that herein, the Department on one hand, is taking advantage of the services of the petitioner and ensuring that the post of Drawing Master is occupied and students are being imparted education, but, on the other hand, is not paying due and admissible salary to him, which otherwise is payable to a Teacher. Learned counsel submitted that forget the due and admissible salary payable to a regular teacher, even grant-in-aid is not being paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that the act of the State is both arbitrary and discriminatory and the petition be allowed as prayed for.

7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, by referring