##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:4152

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition No. 1733 of 2020 (SS)

Parmeshwari Prasad -- Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -- Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 1723 of 2020 (SS)

Ashish Dhyani -- Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -- Respondents

With

Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2020 (SS)

Shailesh Singh Bisht -- Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -- Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates: Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

1. Since common questions of law and fact are

involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard

together and are being decided by a common

judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of

Writ Petition No. 1733 of 2020 (SS), Parmeshwari

Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others alone are

being discussed and considered.

2. Petitioner was engaged as PTA Teacher in a

Government aided Institution w.e.f. 12.01.2015 and he

was paid honorarium @ Rs. 1,000/- per month by the

Parent Teacher Association. As per Government Policy,

PTA teachers, who are engaged up to a particular date

1

2026:UHC:4152

fixed in Government Order dated 21.12.2016 were

entitled to honorarium from State exchequer.

3. According to petitioners, they are eligible and

covered by Government Policy, as all of them were

engaged as PTA teachers before the cutoff date fixed

and thus were entitled for honorarium from State

exchequer. Petitioners are challenging rejection of their

claim for honorarium vide order dated 11.12.2017,

passed by Chief Education Officer, Pauri. The reason

assigned in the impugned order is that honorarium was

not paid to them through cheque before 30.06.2016 by

the Parent Teacher Association concerned.

4. Petitioners submit that they were paid honorarium

through cheque w.e.f. August, 2016. It is further

contended that there are as many as 26 similarly

situate PTA teachers, who did not receive honorarium

through cheuqe before 30.06.2016, yet their claim for

honorarium from State exchequer was allowed and now

they are being paid Rs. 10,000/- from State exchequer.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention

of this Court to orders passed by Chief Education

Officer, Pauri Garhwal on 06.06.2022, 15.06.2022,

25.06.2022, 21.07.2022 and 23.07.2022 which are on

record as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit

filed by petitioner on 02.11.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

PTA teachers named in these orders, were getting

honorarium in cash and not through cheque before the

2

2026:UHC:4152

cutoff date i.e. 30.06.2016, and they were given

benefit of Government Policy.

7. To substantiate this contention, petitioners’

counsel refers to a list prepared by Chief Education

Officer, Pauri Garhwal on 15.11.2019, (Annexure-1 to

the affidavit filed by petitioner on 02.11.2025) where in

column No. 11, against name of certain persons it is

mentioned that they were paid honorarium in cash by

Parent Teacher association.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that

respondents authorities cannot adopt pick-and-choose

policy between persons belonging to same class; since

other similarly situate persons who were receiving

honorarium in cash, are given benefit of Government

Policy, therefore petitioners cannot be denied similar

benefit.

9. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that

since petitioners were not fulfilling the conditions

mentioned in Government Orders dated 21.12.2016

and 03.01.2017, therefore Chief Education Officer was

justified in not accepting claim of the petitioners for

honorarium. He further submits that honorarium to

teachers, who are alleged to be similarly situate by the

petitioners, was given based on affidavits filed by

concerned individuals and also the Manager/Principal of

concerned schools. He fairly submits that petitioners

can