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 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 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 highlight the issue by approaching the competent authority and competent authority will examine the matter and take decision as per law.

10. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to make representation to Chief Education Officer concerned. In the representation, petitioners may indicate the similarity between their case and the case of persons who were granted benefit under Government Policy.

11. If petitioners make representation before competent authority within two weeks from today, competent authority shall examine the matter and pass appropriate order as per law, within eight weeks thereafter, but only after prov