Allowed

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Aug 2024CWP/445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PET teacher engaged on SMC basis in a government school sought Grant-in-Aid after his representation was rejected on the ground that no provision covered PETs. The Court held the Department's continued utilization of his services amounted to acquiescence, followed the Bhadur Singh precedent, quashed the rejection order, and directed release of Grant-in-Aid with arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.09.2023 quashed; respondents to release Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 16.8.2014 per relevant Rules, arrears payable within three months.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:6551

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

¶3

SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No. 445 of 2024 Decided on 02^nd August, 2024

Ramesh Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Coram

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶12

For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal,

¶14

Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶15

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶16

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

¶17

alia, prayed for the following relief:-

¶18

“That appropriate writ, order or directions may very kindly be issued and impugned order dated 23.09.2023 (Annexure P-4) may very kindly be quashed and set aside further directed the respondent to pay Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner against his respective post w.e.f. 20.09.2014 from due date with arrears and interest thereupon.”

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:6551

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as PET Teacher on 02.04.2011 on SMC basis in GMC Dochi, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. He approached the Court for the release of Grant-in-Aid for the service rendered by him in the said School and in terms of judgment dated 06.07.2023, passed in CWP No.3406 of 2019, titled Ramesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the writ of the petitioner was disposed of by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in the following terms:-

¶22

“During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 7.4.2016 passed in CWP No.2467 of 2015 (Villam Singh Versus State of HP & Ors.), as affirmed in LPA No.53 of 2018 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Sh. Villam Singh), decided on 26.11.2018. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶23

Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider

¶24

¶25

2024:HHC:6551

¶26

and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgments, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.”

¶27

Thereafter, the Authority concerned has rejected the

¶28

case of the petitioner, in terms of impugned order dated 23.09.2023, on the ground that as the petitioner was engaged

¶29

as PET and as there was no provision for payment to release Grant-in-Aid to PETs engaged on SMC basis, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief, as prayed for.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the denial of the benefits of the release of Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner on the plea that he was appointed as PET is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that Grant-in-Aid primarily is paid to a teacher imparting education in a School engaged on SMC basis etc. and as the petitioner was also imparting education in the subject of physical education, therefore, he could not have been discriminated. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-5, which is the judgment

¶31

¶32

2024:HHC:6551

¶33

passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7906 of 2019, titled Bhadur Singh and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.10.2021 and submitted that the petitioner therein was also engaged as PET by SMC and the direction passed by the Court in his case for release of Grant-in-Aid has been complied with by the Department concerned. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to release the due and admissible Grant-in-Aid in favour of the petitioner from the date of his engagement.

¶34

Learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the reply filed by the State has submitted that as the appointment of the petitioner on PET basis was without following any valid procedure, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, he has prayed for. He has further submitted that as there is no provision in the policy to engage PET on SMC basis, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. However, it could not be disputed that order passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in favour of an incumbent similarly situated as the petitioner has been

¶35

¶36

2024:HHC:6551

¶37

implemented by the Department.

¶38

I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the

¶39

petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and I have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents therewith.

¶40

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the SMC of the School concerned and that too, in the year 2011. Incidentally, the School, in which, the petitioner was engaged was not a private School, but a Government School. If the Department was of the view that SMC was not conferred any power or authority of engaging any PET, then, as soon as the petitioner was engaged as a PET by the SMC, the Department should have called upon the SMC to disengage the service of the petitioner. This not having been done and the fact

¶41

of the matter being that the petitioner continues to serve as PET till date, this amounts to acquiescence of the Department as far as the engagement of the petitioner as a PET Teacher in the School by the SMC is concerned. Besides this, it is not the case of the respondents before this Court that SMC has engaged the petitioner as a PET in the absence of any such

¶42

¶43

2024:HHC:6551

¶44

post being there in the School or that the petitioner has not imparted any physical education to the students of the School. Therefore, if the services of the petitioner has been utilized by the Department since the year 2011, as far as imparting of education of physical education to the students studying in that School is concerned, the non-release of Grant-in-Aid in his favour on the reasoning which has been assigned in the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Otherwise also, whether or not a PET appointed through SMC is entitled for the release of Grain-in-Aid is no more res-integra and the issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court CWPOA No.7906 of 2019, titled Bhadur Singh and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in this view of the matter, the denial of the Grant-in-Aid to the petitioner by respondents is not sustainable.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-4 dated 23.09.2023, is quashed and set aside and the mandamus is issued to the respondents to release Grant-in-Aid in favour of petitioner in accordance with relevant Rules w.e.f. 16.8.2014, except for his appointment prior to issuance and

¶46

¶47

2024:HHC:6551

¶48

extension of SMC policy in the school concerned. Arrears be paid as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous

¶49

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶50

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶51

August 02, 2024 (Vinod)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Kumar Vs Amin Chand

Pola Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Sunil and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Man Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Kamaljit Vs Anjana Kumari