An employee performing instructional and training duties, such as a sports coach, qualifies as a 'teacher' under the Act and Statutes if their role involves imparting skills and guidance, regardless of their institutional designation.

(Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(a) That the impugned letter dated 20.08.2015 Annexure A-8 may kindly be set aside and quashed and the respondent department may be directed to declare the applicant as teacher in view of the Apex Court judgment in case titled P.S. Ramamohanan Rao Versus A.P. Agriculture University (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3433).

(b) That the respondent may be directed to release the benefit of revision of UGC pay scale since 01.01.2006 alongwith entire arrears and interest accrued thereupon till its payment.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure A-2) to the temporary post of Weight Lifting Coach in the respondent-University at a starting pay of Rs.8000/- in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 (UGC) plus allowances as admissible from time to time. It has been averred that in spite of creation of one post of Weight Lifting Coach in the respondent-University in the year 1998, the said post was not incorporated in the statutes, as teacher, framed by the respondent-University. As per clause 4.1 of the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalala Statutes, 1988 (in short "Statutes"), the teachers have been classified. In the respondent-University except for the post of Weight Lifting Coach in all other posts which were enjoying the UGC scale were considered in the category of teachers. It has further been pleaded that as per Notification dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure A-3), the Executive Council of Himachal Pradesh University has treated the Coaches as Lecturers for all intents and purposes and they have been given the regular scale from July, 1993 with all benefits. It has been averred that as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao vs. A.P. Agricultural University and another, AIR 1997 SC 3433, it has been held that the Coaches are also discharging teaching work as the Coaches have also to teach several skills and techniques of the games apart from the rules applicable to the game and thus the petitioner, who is working on the post of Weight Lifting Coach be treated as teacher. It is also averred that one Chuni Lal, the then Sports Officer, was also given the benefit of revision of pay-scale of teachers from time to time. The petitioner had made representation on 30.01.2006 (Annexure A-4) to declare him as teacher, however, despite the recommendations by the Students Welfare Officer of the respondent-University, the said request was initially not considered and ultimately as per communication dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-6), the request so made to declare him as teacher was rejected on the ground that the same does not fall in the definition of teacher as per statutes.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said decision had preferred the writ petition bearing CWP No.8668 of 2010, titled, Pawan Kumar vs. CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, which came to be disposed of on 23.02.2015 with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision for declaring the petitioner as a 'teacher' within a period of eight weeks. In sequel to the said directions given by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Management in its 108th meeting held on 04.08.2015. The Board considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner to declare him as a "teacher" in view of the provisions contained in the statutes.

The petitioner has challenged the said decision on various grounds inter-alia that the respondent-University has not taken into consideration the contention raised by the petitioner based on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao's case (supra) and other various judgments passed by the different High Courts and also on the basis of precedent in the respondent-University wherein the benefit of teacher to Ex-Sports Officer Sh.Chuni Lal Sharma has been extended