Dismissed¶19

Dinesh Kumar Negi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2024CWP/2213/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

grant-in-aid; School Management Committee (SMC) appointment; PGT History; Government Senior Secondary School Darkali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla; SMC Policy 17.07.2012; Annexure P-4 (28.06.2017); Annexure P-8; seriously disputed questions of fact; writ of mandamus refused; alternative remedy; limitation credit; attendance dispute (5 days in 2018, 2 days in 2019); CWP No. 2213 of 2019; Dinesh Kumar Negi v. State of H.P.; Villam Singh v. State of H.P. (CWP 2467/2015) referred in prayer; LPA No. 53 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty to invoke available remedy as per law, with time spent in this writ to count towards limitation. ¶19

Dinesh Kumar Negi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty to invoke available remedy as per law, with time spent in this writ to count towards limitation.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents to release grant-in-aid to the petitioner from his initial appointment (July 2017) till date, with consequential benefits and interest, on the basis of notification Annexure P-8. +1 more

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The petition involves seriously disputed questions of fact: against the respondents' stand that the petitioner served only 5 days in 2018 and 2 days in 2019, the petitioner must substantiate by leading cogent evidence that he imparted education in the school for substantive time so as to entitle him to grant-in-aid; therefore this Court is not in a position to grant any relief.

¶18

Key takeaways

The claim that the Principal prevented the petitioner from marking attendance finds no averment in the writ petition as originally filed (September 2019); the assertion emerges only in the rejoinder.ratio¶17
The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke such remedy as is available to him as per law, and the time spent pursuing this writ is to be taken into consideration while calculating the period of limitation; pending miscellaneous applications likewise disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral) dismissed CWP No. 2213 of 2019 (Dinesh Kumar Negi v. State of H.P. & others), in which a PGT (History) appointed by a School Management Committee vide Annexure P-4 dated 28.06.2017 sought mandamus for release of grant-in-aid from July 2017 with consequential benefits and interest (per notification Annexure P-8), invoking CWP 2467/2015 (Villam Singh v. State of H.P., 07.04.2016), upheld in LPA No. 53/2018 and by the Supreme Court on 09.08.2019. Holding that seriously disputed questions of fact were involved — the State contending the appointment breached the SMC Policy of 17.07.2012 and that presence was marked only 5 days in 2018 and 2 days in 2019, against a rejoinder-first claim that the Principal blocked attendance — the Court held the petitioner must prove substantive teaching service by cogent evidence before a competent forum; dismissal with liberty to pursue available remedies, time spent credited towards limitation.

¶1

2024:HHC:10999

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2213 of 2019
Decided on: 07.11.2024

¶4

Dinesh Kumar Negi Versus State of H.P. & others	… Petitioner … Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay M Whether approved for repo	ohan Goel, Judge. rting?^{1 Yes}
___________________________ For the petitioner :	__________________________ Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶5

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶6

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶7

following reliefs:-

¶8

“a ) That Writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the Respondents to release the grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. July, 2017 till date with all consequential benefits with interest on the basis of notification Annexure P-8. b) The respondents may further be directed to release the benefit on the basis of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP 2467/2015 in case title Villam Singh versus State of H.P. decided on 07.04.2016 further upheld by Division Bench in LPA No.53/2018 and finally upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.08.2019.”

¶9

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a P.G.T. History in Government Senior Secondary School, Darkali, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. by the School Management

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

2024:HHC:10999 Committee (SMC) in terms of Annexure P-4, dated 28.06.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the Grant-inAid for imparting education to the students.

¶13

The stand of the respondents is that appointment of the petitioner by the SMC of the school concerned was not inconsonance with the provisions of the SMC Policy notified on 17.07.2012, as amended from time to time. Further, as per the respondents, the presence of the petitioner was marked in the school in the year 2018 only for 5 days and in the year 2019 only for 2 days in terms of the documents provided by the petitioner. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he informed the Court that the petitioner is no more serving in the school concerned.

¶14

A perusal of the rejoinder demonstrates that in rebuttal to the averments made in the reply mentioned hereinabove, all that is mentioned is that the Principal of the school was not allowing the petitioner to mark his presence so as to not release the Grand-in-Aid in his favour.

¶15

In the considered view of this Court, in the present case there are seriously disputed questions of fact involved. Incindently, when this Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner in the month of September, 2019, no averment was made in the Writ Petition that despite the fact that petitioner was regularly attending the school

¶16

¶17

2024:HHC:10999 and imparting education, the Principal was not allowing him to mark his presence.

¶18

Therefore, now in light of the stand of the respondents taken by them in their reply, that the petitioner served for only 5 days in the year 2018 and 2 days in the year 2019, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner because in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner will have to substantiate by leading cogent evidence that he indeed imparted education in the school for substantive time so as to entitle him for the relief of Grantin-Aid.

¶19

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioner to invoke such remedy as is available to him as per law. In the event of any such remedy being invoked by the petitioner, the time spent by him while pursuing this remedy be taken into consideration while calculating the period of limitation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶21

November 07, 2024 (Rishi)

Dinesh Kumar Negi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Negi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogita Vs State of Hp and Another

Krishan Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Piar Singh and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Hemant Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Anil Kumar Vs Hpsebl

Nek Ram Vs Amandeep Garg and Others