The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a direction to release Grant-in-Aid to a Physical Education Teacher appointed from 26.01.2017 in a tribal/difficult area. Relied on settled precedent Villam Singh v. State of HP, directing payment of aid w.e.f. the date of appointment.
Direction to release Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 26.01.2017
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 7479 of 2021
Decided on : 9th December, 2022.
Bhoopender Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... .Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Narender Thakur, Dy. A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mainly the following relief(s):-
“(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 26.01.2017 when Tehsil Sangrah of District Sirmour has been included in the tribal/difficult area in
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2…
furtherance of the Policy to engage the teachers on SMC basis pursuant to notification dated 20.09.2014; (ii) That respondents may very kindly be directed to extend the benefit of judgment dated 7.4.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2467/2015, titled as Villam Singh Vs. State of HP & others (Annexure P-9, affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 53 of 2018 vide judgment dated 26.11.2018 and further upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 19103/2019, vide judgment dated 9.8.2019, and consequentially the petitioner may be held entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority and arrears;”
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on the basis of a resolution passed by the School Management Committee, Government High School, Ghaton, District Sirmour. Petitioner is working in the school since 26.01.2017. The State of Himachal Pradesh has formulated Grant-in-Aid Rules in the year, 2014. However, the respondents were not paying Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner w.e.f. 26.01.2017, as per Rules. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the similar circumstances, Villam Singh has filed CWP No.2467 of
…3…
2015, which was decided vide order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-9). The said order was upheld by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018, passed in LPA No.53 of 2018. The Special Leave to Appeal, filed by the respondents/State, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel has further submitted that so far as the order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-9) is concerned, it has attained finality. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed in terms of order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-9).
…4…
“8. Whether the respondent was appointed as per the procedure prescribed in a Policy which saw the light of the day after his appointment, is essentially a question of fact. There ought to have been appropriate pleadings from the side of the appellants to which respondent could be given an opportunity to submit his counter. No such factual plea was taken in the reply or pleaded before the learned Single Judge. We are thus of the view that such a plea cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. That apart, the respondent admittedly possessed the requisite qualification for the subject post. The object of the SMC Policy for payment of Grant-in-Aid to the teachers appointed in tribal/difficult areas is to give an incentive to the educated and qualified young persons to serve in these areas. The Policy no doubt contemplates a procedure for appointment, but then such procedure cannot be applied to the appointments which have already been made well before the Policy came into existence. The object of paying Grant-in-Aid being an incentive to retain qualified teachers in tribal/difficult areas, no self defeating objection should be allowed to sustain. 9. We are thus of the view that there is nothing to fault with the appointment of the respondent as SMC teacher for the limited purpose of receiving Grant-inAid. No case to interfere with the order under appeal is thus made out. The appeal is dismissed on both counts i.e. on limitation as well as merits.”
…5…
Villam Singh, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decisions.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
9th December, 2022. (jai)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to Grant-in-Aid from the date of appointment as Physical Education Teacher in a tribal area.
Whether the petitioner can avail the benefits of the judgment and order dated 7.4.2016 in CWP No. 2467/2015 (Villam Singh case).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Villam Singh Vs. State of HP & othersRelied on¶14
CWP No. 2467 of 2015
State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sh. Villam SinghRelied on¶27
LPA No. 53 of 2018
Hon'ble Supreme Court of IndiaReferred¶14
SLP(C) No. 19103/2019
Bhoopender Singh
State of H.P.
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
